400-996-0065

1月5日大陆地区GRE考试最全最快回顾

编辑:admin 18-01-26 04:35:57 分享到:

阅读部分

passage71

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868,prohibits state governments from denying citizens the “equal protection of the laws.” Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by this equal protection clause remains unclear, all interpreters agree that the framers’ immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration, which was echoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, was designed primarily to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be denied citizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not provide Congress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnson’s veto, supporters of the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that its framers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list of specific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbids organized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for the first eight decades of the amendment’s existence, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, for example, the Court invented the “state action” limitation, which asserts that “private” decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercial business to segregate their facilities are insulated form the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

After the Second World War, a judicial climate more hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Court;s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two doctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended the amendment’s reach. First, the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation that employed a “suspect classification,” meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could be construed as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to other, nonracial forms of discrimination, for while some justices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race to be constitutionally disfavored, most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracial discriminations, sexual discrimination in particular, are “suspect” and deserve this heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second, the Court relaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment, bringing new forms of private conduct within the amendment’ s reach.

100留学网免责声明

(一)100留学网有大量转载的留学文章,仅代表作者个人观点,与100留学网无关。其原创性以及文中陈述文字和内容未经本站证实,对本文以及其中全部或者部分内容、文字的真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容 (二)免费转载出于非商业性学习目的,出国留学文章版权归原作者所有。如有任何文章内容涉及版权问题,请在30日内与100留学网联系.

400-996-0065
  • 上一篇: 相同类型下没有文�
  • 下一篇: 相同类型下没有文章了
01 02
0人觉得赞.

我要提问 - 让专家主动与你联系!

为了节省您的查找时间,请将您要找的信息填写在表格里,留下您的联系方式并提交,我们的顾问会主动与您联系。

   
确定提交
更多在线答疑
  • 资深顾问

    一对一指导

  • 担保交易

    满意再付款

  • 留学培训

    整套化方案

  • 境内境外

    一站式服务

  • 专业客服

    全天候响应

  • 成功案例

    真实可信赖

院校推荐