What is the 14th amendment?
364648
The 14th Amendment is Ratified\n1868\n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment was originally ratified to protect the freedman from the abrogation of his rights by the Southern states. Looking to protect the African American, the amendment made him a citizen and forced the federal government to be responsible for him. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the States from denying or abridging the fundamental rights of every citizen and required them to grant all persons equal protection and due process .\n\nIt was obvious that the "political rights" part of the proposed change was intended to open the way for Black voting on a national scale . The wording of the amendment looked something, though obviously not completely, like this: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of citizens of the United States; provided that whenever in any State civil or political rights or privilege shall be denied or abridged on account of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation or taxation."\n\nRatification of the document took a horribly long time due to the fact that it occurred toward the end of the Civil War. Ironically, the amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Southern states were required to ratify it in order to be readmitted into the Union . However, the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases diluted the amendment so much that all federal control over state police powers was virtually eliminated .\n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment was also very important much later on, in the 1950s and 1960s. While originally constructed to deal with the rights of freedmen, cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education, turned to a quite similar issue. Its interpretation came to be the legal heart of the civil rights movement of the `60s. The fourteenth amendment was arguably the most important of all. It radically changed the definition of the United States Citizen
489337
Dear Friend,\n\nDo you mean "which amendments to the Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights had the most impact on businesses"?  If so, I would say the First Amendment.  Not only does it provide explicit safe haven for our huge media, news, and entertainment industries, the First Amendment protects vital commercial free speech (including advertising, political expenditures, and lobbying).\n\nOr do you mean, "Which amendments to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights have had the most impact on business"?  If that's the question, I'd say the 14th amendment.  That amendment, intended for the protection of newly-freed African Americans, set forth:\n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "\n\nBut "person" was deemed to include corporate as well as natural persons, so corporations finally obtained due process rights.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
811785
The Bill of Rights was demanded by critics of the Constitution (the Anti-Federalists), who noted that the Constitution did not prevent the federal government from restricting certain rights. The Bill of Rights was largely meant to prevent the very abuses that caused the Revolutionary War, and/or abuses that had traditionally been solved by other facets of English Common Law.\n\nIn essence, the Bill of Rights sets up certain parts of an individual's life that government may not interfere with or directly regulate. For the most part, these protections are only between the Federal government and the individual, until the 14th Amendment was largely interpreted to force the States to also hold to the Bill of Rights as well.
737199
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: \n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, \nand subject to the jurisdiction thereof, \nare citizens of the United States \nand the State wherein they reside." \n\n\n\n\n\nBabies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders \nare called anchor babies \nbecause under the 1965 immigration Act, \nthey act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother \nand eventually a host of other relatives \ninto permanent U.S. residency. \n(Jackpot babies is another term). \n\nThe 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 \nto protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, \nwhose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. \nIn 1866, Senator Jacob Howard \nclearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: \n\n"Every person born within the limits of the United States, \nand subject to their jurisdiction, \nis by virtue of natural law and national law \na citizen of the United States. \nThis will not, of course, include persons born in the United States\nwho are foreigners or aliens, \nwho belong to the families of ambassadors \nor foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, \nbut will include every other class of persons. \nIt settles the great question of citizenship \nand removes all doubt as to what persons \nare or are not citizens of the United States. \nThis has long been a great desideratum \nin the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."\n\nThe correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment \nis that an illegal alien mother \nis subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, \nas is her baby.\n\nThe original intent of the 14th Amendment \nwas clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. \nlaw at taxpayer expense.\nSadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.\n\n\n \nCurrent estimates indicate \nthere may be over 300,000 anchor babies \nborn each year in the U.S., \nthus causing illegal alien mothers \nto add more to the U.S. population each year \nthan immigration from all sources \nin an average year before 1965. \n\n\n\nPresent U.S. anchor baby "policy" \nis an abuse of the 14th Amendment.\nAn illegal alien can cross the border, \nhave a baby five minutes later, \nand that baby is automatically declared a citizen of the U.S.A.\n\nThe birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. \nAs the child grows he or she is entitled \nto a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs.\n \nSince most anchor babies are classified as "minorities", \nthey can expect to enjoy legal preference \nover "non-Hispanic white males" \nunder today's "civil rights" regime. \n\nUpon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby \nis eligible to import relatives from the home country \nthrough America's nepotistic chain migration system , \nin which the principal qualification \nfor a prespective legal immigrant \nis having relatives already in the U.S. \n\nWhen you look at the vast cornucopia of benefits, \nyou have to conclude \nthat the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration.\n\nFor those who disobey U.S. law and their children, \nAmerica is certainly the land of opportunity!\n\nThe anchor baby fiasco must be stopped. \nIt rewards illegal immigrants \nand encourages more illegal immigration. \nIt costs law-abiding taxpayers a bundle. \nIt makes it harder to control the border, reform immigration \nand rein in the runaway welfare state. \nAnd,  it cheapens American citizenship \nand mocks those who play by the rules.\n\n\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation \nof the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact \nthat the meaning of this phrase, \nwhich was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, \nhas slipped with changes in usage. \nFortunately, there is a large group of court precedents \nthat ma
288030
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in July 1868, guaranteed basic civil rights to all citizens; it was intended to persuade Southern states to grant suffrage to blacks by threatening a reduction of their congressional representation. To further the cause of black suffrage, the Radical Republican Congress, which had swept away the Southern regimes organized under presidential Reconstruction, required ex-Confederate states to adopt new state constitutions allowing black suffrage before senators and representatives from those states would be readmitted to Congress. The United States was thus faced with a situation in which all the ex-Confederate states granted blacks the right to vote, while 16 of the loyal Union states still denied black suffrage.\n\nTo remedy the inequity and to help shore up the Southern Radical Republican Reconstruction regimes, a 15th Amendment to the Constitution was proposed in February 1869. It stated simply that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." There was much debate in Congress about what should be included in the Amendment. Henry Adams remarked that the 15th Amendment was "more remarkable for what it does not than for what it does contain."\n\nIt did not guarantee blacks the right to hold office, which many congressmen felt should be included. It did not offer a blanket guarantee of the right to vote because many Radical Republicans feared that would void the disenfranchisement of ex-Confederates. Many states, North and South, required payment of poll taxes, property ownership, or literacy as a condition of voting. The 15th Amendment did not address any of those stipulations. Feminists, especially, fought against the amendment because women were not included in the guarantee of suffrage.
759168
A New York statute forbidding permanent certification as a public school teacher of any person who is not a United States citizen unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\nHere is the dissenting decision:
753255
amendments,  \n\nfrom congress and or the supreme court
890042
There is no amendment that states that. But in Roe vs Wade, the big Abortion case. The supreme court cited the 14th Amendment and the "right to privacy" extended to a woman and her body.\n\nRead more on the link provided.
614574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution
905344
The Constitution.  It is the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The first 10 Amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights.
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
59864
If you mean amendments to the constitution:\n\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
444091
***In Response To parrotjohn2001\n\nThe problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)) \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\n the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d  266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\n The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.  As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  See Article IV, Section 1.\n\n Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”   \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the s
909948
Only one: the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n"No state shall .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nThere are some other amendments which expanded sufferage, but none of them mention equality (even though the equal right to vote is the obvious point of those other amendments).
923759
I'll give you enough info to get started.\n\nThe Supremacy Clause is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."\n\nThis effectively prevents state and local governments from exercising powers that are specifically reserved to the federal government, and restrictions conferred by the Constitution upon the States are enforcable, even if it would contradict state/local law.\n\nThis clause, combined with the rest of the constitution, and amendments, places limits on state and local governments, such as the 14th Amendment, Section 1:\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
514197
27\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
469779
Amendment 14 Section 1 [1868]:\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."