240 likes | 253 Views
14th Amendment. Jordyn Smith, Zulema Velazquez, Kris Moss, Erin Riley, Maddie Knox, Tristan Josephson, Christopher Yoars. 14th Amendment.
E N D
14th Amendment Jordyn Smith, Zulema Velazquez, Kris Moss, Erin Riley, Maddie Knox, Tristan Josephson, Christopher Yoars
14th Amendment 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.
Explanation of the 14th amendment: • Any person born or a citizen of the United States no matter what race is protected under law. Adopted July 9, 1868 • Citizenship Clause – the citizenship clause gives individuals born in the United States the right to citizenship. • Due Process Clause – prohibiting the government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. • Equal Protection Clause – no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
Korematsu v. US Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American who argued that Executive Order 9066 violated the rights bestowed to him by the 14th amendment. Executive Order 9066 designated certain areas of the country as war zones, allowing for the incarceration of Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans in internment camps.
Korematsu v. US The argument was if protecting America from possible Japanese spies was more important than keeping America desegregated. It was also to decide if ethnicity was a strong enough reason to suspect a person of a crime.
Korematsu v. US The case was argued on October 11 and 12, 1944. It was decided on December 18, 1944. The court sided with the government in a 6-3 decision stating that their reasoning was to protect against Japanese spies, not to discriminate against Japanese Americans.
Gitlow v. New York Plaintiff-New York Defendant- Gitlow Date- June 8, 1925 Amendment at hand- 14th amendment
Gitlow v. New York The case arose in November 1919 when Benjamin Gitlow, who had served as a local assemblyman, and an associate, Alan Larkin, were arrested by New York City police officers for criminal anarchy, an offense under New York state law.
Court Decision Supreme Court took place in April and November 1923, and the Supreme Court issued its ruling, written by Justice Edward T. Sanford, in June 1925. The court upheld Gitlow’s conviction.
Taylor v. Louisiana October 16, 1974 Billy J. Taylor was found guilty of kidnapping, in the St. Tammany Parish of Louisiana. Louisiana had a law that said women can’t be selected for jury unless they registered with the court. Taylor’s trial had no women, so he filed a motion arguing that excluding women from jury violated his Sixth Amendment. The trial court rejected Taylor's motion, so Taylor appealed to the Supreme Court.
Taylor v. Louisiana The Supreme Court agreed with Taylor and ordered Louisiana to re-try him. The Court said that Louisiana violated the Sixth Amendment by excluding women from juries. Louisiana and all other states must obey the Sixth Amendment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, all Americans have the right to be tried by an impartial jury.
Taylor v. Louisiana Louisiana said that their law was protecting women from having to leave the important roles of taking care of one’s family at home. A jury cannot properly do its job unless it is the voice of the entire community. By Taylor filing a motion on “fair cross-section”, the Court opened the way for women to serve on juries equally with men.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Granted January 16, 2015 Plaintiff: James Obergefell Defendant: Richard Hodges (director of the Ohio Department of Health) In Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, marriage was strictly defined as an action which occurred between one man and one women. 14 same sex couples that wanted to get married but could not sued their home states and argued that the state's statutes violated the equal protection clause and due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Argued April 28, 2015 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western District had a 5-4 majority opinion and decided that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects. They also declared that the first amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to follow their principles, but states are not allowed to prohibit same sex marriage.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Decided June 26, 2015 Allowing same sex couples to get married provides benefits and equalities that weren’t available before. For example, it is easier for a married couple to adopt a child and before gay marriage was legalized as constitutional, this was something gay couples had trouble doing because they could not get married. By legalizing gay marriage, same sex couples are now able to feel more accepted in society and follow their beliefs.
Bush v. Gore There was a mandatory recount in Florida due to how close the 2000 presidential election was between Gore and Bush. Bush just barely won. Had the recount occurred, it is likely that Gore would have won. The court case was debating if the mandatory recount went against the Equal Protection Clause due to different standards for counting votes between the initial count and a recount.
Bush v. Gore The ruling was a 7 to 2 decision that the statewide recount was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This was to guarantee that ballots could not be devalued in the recount even if it counted during the initial vote.
Bush v. Gore Different precincts and different counties all had different standards for what should count and what shouldn’t, even for the same kind of ballot. This was deemed unconstitutional because someone’s ballot may not count in one area, but a similar ballot would count in a different area, and that is not equal protection.
Plessy V. Ferguson • Plessy V.S. Ferguson was about Homer Adolph Plessy who got arrested on a Louisiana train for sitting in a whites only section on the train. He was seven-eighths caucasian so he was pretty much white. But they still didn’t want him sitting in the white only section so he was arrested. • The case was argued on April 13, 1896 and the case was decided on May 18, 1896 • The railway was required to give separate but equal rights. So technically they weren’t in the wrong. • He had notified the railroad conductor of his African American lineage to get kicked off of the train so he could protest.
Decision The court upheld state imposed segregation. They based their decision on the Separate but Equal law. They decided against Plessy because he was seven eighths caucasian. They decided that it didn'tinterfere with the 13th amendment which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. So the court decided against him.
The significance of this case: This case is significant in today because he did this in the worst way possible he caused a scene to get his way. And it didn't have an effect on life today because most protesters today still do what he did. That's not a peaceful protest so technically it was against the law.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Plaintiff; Allan Bakke Defendant; University of California Bakke was rejected from medical school after applying more than twice. 16 out of every 100 spots were on hold for minorities. Allan Bakke’s GPA and MCAT scores were very high.
Court Decisions Issue: Bakke argued that the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Holding: 5 to 4 decision that they couldn’t have the racial quotas because it was unconstitutional, but Affirmative Action could be used to help decide what students got into the school.
The significance of this : Racial quotas can’t be used to decide who gets admitted into colleges, but race (Affirmative Action) can be used as a factor when deciding who gets into schools. Universities can’t save spots for minorities anymore.