Citations (206):
1. "Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11–27".National Archives and Records Administration. Archived from the originalon May 26, 2013. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
2. Goldstone 2011, p. 22.
3. Stromberg, "APlain Folk Perspective" (2002), p. 111.
4. Nelson, William E.(1988). The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle toJudicial Doctrine. Harvard University Press.p. 47. ISBN 9780674041424. Retrieved June6, 2013.
5. Stromberg, "APlain Folk Perspective" (2002), p. 112.
6. Foner, Eric (June1, 1997). Reconstruction. pp. 199–200. ISBN 978-0-8071-2234-1.
7. Foner 1988,pp. 250–251.
8. Castel, Albert E.(1979). The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. AmericanPresidency. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-7006-0190-5.
9. Castel, Albert E.(1979). The Presidency of Andrew Johnson. AmericanPresidency. Lawrence, Kan.: The Regents Press of Kansas. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-7006-0190-5.
10. Rosen,Jeffrey. The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That DefinedAmerica, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).
11. Newman,Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan1999).
12. Goldstone 2011, pp. 22–23.
13. Soifer,"Prohibition of Voluntary Peonage" (2012), p. 1614.
14. Foner 1988, p. 252.
15. Foner 1988, p. 253.
16. JamesJ. Kilpatrick, ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States andAmendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government.p. 44.
17. McPherson,Edward LL.D., (Clerk of the House of Representatives of the UnitedStates) "A Handbook of Politics for 1868", Part I -Political Manual for 1866, VI - Votes on Proposed Constitutional Amendments.Washington City: Philp & Solomons. 1868, p. 102
18. Carter,Dan. When the War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South,1865–1867, pp. 242–243 (LSU Press 1985).
19. Graber,"Subtractionby Addition?" (2012), pp. 1501–1502.
20. "The Civil War And Reconstruction". RetrievedJanuary 8, 2016.
21. AnAct to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States, enactedMarch 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 428, 429
22. "AmendmentXIV". USGovernment Printing Office. Archived from the originalon February 2, 2014. Retrieved June 23, 2013.
23. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S.Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library ofCongress. p. 707.
24. Killian,Johnny H.; et al. (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America:Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court ofthe United States to June 28, 2002. Government Printing Office.p. 31. ISBN 9780160723797.
25. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S.Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library ofCongress. p. 709.
26. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S.Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library ofCongress. p. 710.
27. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S.Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library ofCongress. p. 708.
28. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S.Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875. Library ofCongress. p. 711.
29. "Amendmentof 1868 Ratified by Maryland". The New York Times. April 5, 1959.p. 71. ProQuest 114922297.
30. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).
31. "Civil Rights Cases(1883)". PearsonEducation, Inc., publishing as Pearson Prentice Hall. Pearson Education.2005. Retrieved October 23, 2013.
32. Graber,"Subtractionby Addition?" (2012), p. 1523.
33. Goldstone 2011, pp. 23–24.
34. Eric Foner, "The SecondAmerican Revolution", In These Times, September 1987; reprinted in CivilRights Since 1787, ed. Jonathan Birnbaum & Clarence Taylor, NYU Press,2000. ISBN 0814782493
35. Finkelman,Paul (2003). "John Bingham and the Backgroundto the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Akron Law Review. 36(671). Retrieved April 2, 2009.
36. Harrell,David and Gaustad, Edwin. Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People,Volume 1, p. 520 (Eerdmans Publishing, 2005): "The most important, and theone that has occasioned the most litigation over time as to its meaning andapplication, was Section One."
37. Stephenson,D. The Waite Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy, p. 147 (ABC-CLIO,2003).
38. Tsesis,Alexander (2008). "The Inalienable Core of Citizenship: From Dred Scott tothe Rehnquist Court". Arizona State Law Journal. 39. SSRN 1023809.
39. McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020,3060 (2010) ("This [clause] unambiguously overruled this Court's contraryholding in Dred Scott.")
40. Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409(1968).
41. Yen, Chin-Yung. Rightsof citizens and persons under the Fourteenth amendment, page 7 (New Era PrintingCompany 1905).
42. Messner,Emily. "Born in theU.S.A. (Part I)", The Debate, The Washington Post (March 30, 2006).Archived November 6, 2011,at the Wayback Machine
43. Pear,Robert (August 7, 1996). "CitizenshipProposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution". The New YorkTimes.
44. Magliocca,Gerard N. (2007). "Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause andIllegal Aliens". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 10:499–526. SSRN 965268.
45. Foner,Eric (August 27, 2015). "BirthrightCitizenship Is the Good Kind of American Exceptionalism". The Nation.The Nation. Retrieved November 12, 2015.
46. LaFantasie,Glenn (March 20, 2011) The erosion of theCivil War consensus, Salon Archived March 23, 2011,at the Wayback Machine
47. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893 Senator Reverdy Johnson said in thedebate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in theUnited States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is themeaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall beconsidered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to becitizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizensof the United States, there should be some certain definition of whatcitizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himselfand the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend uponbirth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact ofbirth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at thetime were subject to the authority of the United States."
48. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897.
49. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572.
50. Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp.2890,2892–4,2896.
51. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Trumbull, duringthe debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance toanybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon whathe meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a NavajoeIndian in court? ... We make treaties with them, and therefore they arenot subject to our jurisdiction.... If we want to control the Navajoes or anyother Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it?Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in thatsense? ... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them forinstituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Governmentof the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies andother crimes committed by one Indian upon another? ... It is only thosepersons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to ourlaws, that we think of making citizens."
52. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895. Howardadditionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction inextent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"and that the U.S. possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" overthe person described in the amendment.
53. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
54. Urofsky,Melvin I.; Finkelman, Paul (2002). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 1 (2nded.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512635-8.
55. Reid,Kay (September 22, 2012). "Multilayeredloyalties: Oregon Indian women as citizens of the land, their tribal nations,and the united States". Oregon Historical Quarterly.Archived from the original on September 4,2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
56. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 2893. From the debateon the Civil Rights Act:
Mr. Johnson: "... Who is acitizen of the United States is an open question. The decision of the courtsand doctrine of the commentators is, that every man who is a citizen of theState becomes ipso facto a citizen of the United States; but there is nodefinition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except throughthe medium of a citizenship in a State ..."
57. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498. The debate onthe Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:
Mr. Cowan: "I will ask whether itwill not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsiesborn in this country?"
Mr. Trumbull: "Undoubtedly."
...
Mr. Trumbull: "I understand that under the naturalization laws thechildren who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized arecitizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not thechild born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have gotvery few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if thechildren born of German parents are not citizens."
Mr. Cowan: "The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. Thechildren of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germansare not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is thefallacy of his argument."
Mr. Trumbull: "If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the lawany distinction made between the children of German parents and the children ofAsiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but thelaw makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of acitizen as the child of a European."
58. CongressionalGlobe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891–2892 During the debateon the Amendment, Senator John Conness of Californiadeclared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relatessimply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents inCalifornia, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We havedeclared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporatethat same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favorof doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of allparentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated ascitizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with othercitizens."
59. "Veto of theCivil Rights Bill | Teaching American History".
60. Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 2891.From the debate on the Civil Rights Act:
Mr. Cowan: "Therefore I think,before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United Statesshall be taken to be citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude othersbesides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being muchless dangerous and much less pestiferous to a society than I look upon Gypsies.I do not know how many my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese,but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt thatnow they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints,allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may seefit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution ofthe United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as intheir wisdom they see fit ..."
61. Lee,Margaret. "Birthright Citizenship Under the 14thAmendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents", Congressional Research Service (August 12,2010): "Over the last decade or so, concern about illegal immigration hassporadically led to a re-examination of a long-established tenet of U.S.citizenship, codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), that a person who is born in the United States, subject toits jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race,ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. ... some scholars argue that theCitizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the childrenof unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not existat the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in Congress and ratified bythe states."
62. PeterGrier (August 10, 2010). "14thAmendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'". ChristianScience Monitor. Archived from the originalon December 28, 2012. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
63. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
64. Rodriguez,C.M. (2009). "The SecondFounding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unityof the Fourteenth Amendment [PDF]" (PDF). U. Pa.J. Const. L. 11: 1363–1475. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 15,2011. Retrieved January 20, 2011.
65. "8 FAM 301.1-3 Not Included inthe Meaning of 'In the United States'". United States Department of State. Retrieved July18, 2018.
66. Currentpolicies are at [1].
67. U.S.Department of State (February 1, 2008). "Advice aboutPossible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality". Archived from the original on April 16,2009. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
68. Forexample, see Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), overruledby Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
69. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
70. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
71. Yoo,John. Survey of the Law of Expatriation,Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor General (June 12, 2002). Archived June 6, 2013, atthe Wayback Machine
72. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
73. Beatty,Jack (April 8, 2008). Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America,1865–1900.New York: Vintage Books. p. 135. ISBN 978-1400032426. Retrieved July19, 2013.
74. e.g.,United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
75. Shaman,Jeffrey. Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality, p. 248(Greenwood Publishing 2001).
76. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).
77. Bogen,David. Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the UnitedStates Constitution, p. 104 (Greenwood Publushing 2003).
78. Barnett,Randy. Privileges orImmunities Clause alive again.
79. Hurtadov. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
80. Curry,James A.; Riley, Richard B.; Battiston, Richard M. (2003). "6". ConstitutionalGovernment: The American Experience. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7872-9870-8. Retrieved July14, 2013.
81. Gupta,Gayatri (2009). "Due process". In Folsom, W. Davis; Boulware,Rick (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Business. Infobase. p. 134.
82. Cord,Robert L. (1987). "TheIncorporation Doctrine and Procedural Due Process Under the FourteenthAmendment: An Overview". Brigham Young University LawReview (3): 868. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
83. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 169 U.S. 649 (1897).
84. "Due Processof Law – Substantive Due Process". West's Encyclopedia of AmericanLaw. Thomson Gale. 1998.
85. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
86. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
87. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
88. "CRSAnnotated Constitution". Cornell University Law School LegalInformation Institute. Archived from the originalon November 10, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
89. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
90. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898).
91. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).
92. Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
93. United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919).
94. West CoastHotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
95. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497(1961), at 543
96. PlannedParenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, at849
97. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
98. Griswold v. Connecticut. Encyclopediaof the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).January 1, 2000. Archived from the original on September 5,2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
99. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
100. Roe v. Wade410 U.S. 113 (1973) Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973). Encyclopediaof the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).January 1, 2000. Archived from the original on June 10, 2014.Retrieved June 16, 2013.
101. PlannedParenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
102. Casey,505 U.S. at 845–846.
103. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
104. Spindelman,Marc (June 1, 2004). "SurvivingLawrence v. Texas". Michigan Law Review. Archivedfrom the original on June 10, 2014.Retrieved June 16, 2013.
105. Howe,Amy (June 26, 2015). "In historicdecision, Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage: In PlainEnglish". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July8, 2015.
106. White,Bradford (2008). Procedural Due Process in Plain English. National Trust for HistoricPreservation. ISBN 978-0-89133-573-3.
107. Seealso Mathews v. Eldridge (1976).
108. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
109. JessBravin; Kris Maher (June 8, 2009). "Justices SetNew Standard for Recusals". The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved June 9, 2009.
110. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).
111. Levy,Leonard W. (January 2000). Barron v. City of Baltimore 7 Peters 243 (1833). Encyclopediaof the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on March 29,2015. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
112. Foster,James C. (2006). "Bingham,John Armor". In Finkelman, Paul (ed.). Encyclopedia ofAmerican Civil Liberties. CRC Press. p. 145. ISBN 9780415943420.
113. Amar,Akhil Reed (1992). "The Bill ofRights and the Fourteenth Amendment". Yale Law Journal. 101 (6):1193–1284. doi:10.2307/796923. JSTOR 796923. Archived from the original on October 19,2008.
114. "Duncanv. Louisiana (Mr. Justice Black, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas,concurring)". Cornell Law School – LegalInformation Institute. May 20, 1968. Retrieved April 26,2009.
115. Levy,Leonard (1970). Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: TheIncorporation Theory (American Constitutional and Legal History Series). Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-70029-3.
116. 677F.2d 957 (1982)
117. "Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis (1916)". Justia. May 22, 1916.Retrieved August 1, 2010.
118. "TheConstitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation –1992 Edition --> Amendments to the Constitution --> Seventh Amendment –Civil Trials". U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 1992. p. 1464. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
119. AmyHowe (February 20, 2019). "Opinionanalysis: Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines applies to the states". SCOTUSblog. RetrievedFebruary 20, 2019.
120. Goldstone 2011, pp. 20, 23–24.
121. Failinger,Marie (2009). "Equalprotection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew(ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. ISBN 9781438109916.
122. Primus,Richard (May 2004). "Bolling Alone". Columbia Law Review. SSRN 464847.
123. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
124. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
125. "Annotation18 – Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection ofthe Laws: Scope and application state action". FindLaw forLegal Professionals – Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reutersbusiness. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
126. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210–16 (1982).
127. CongressionalGlobe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1033 (1866), page 2766
128. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896).
129. Wong Wing, 163 U.S. at 242–243 (Justice Field,concurring in part and dissenting in part).
130. Johnson,John W. (January 1, 2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia.Routledge. pp. 446–47. ISBN 978-0-415-93755-9. Retrieved June13, 2013.
131. Vile,John R., ed. (2003). "Corporations". Encyclopedia ofConstitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues: 1789 –2002. ABC-CLIO. p. 116.
132. Logan,Rayford Whittingham (1965). The betrayal of the Negro, from Rutherford B.Hayes to Woodrow Wilson. New York: Collier Books. p. 100.
133. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).
134. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
135. Abrams,Eve (February 12, 2009). "Plessy/Fergusonplaque dedicated". WWNO (University New Orleans PublicRadio). Retrieved April 17, 2009.
136. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908).
137. Holmes,Oliver Wendell, Jr. "274 U.S.200: Buck v. Bell". Cornell University Law School LegalInformation Institute. Archived from the original on May 30, 2013.Retrieved June 12, 2013.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
138. Brown v. Boardof Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
139. Patterson,James (2002). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and ItsTroubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History). Oxford UniversityPress. ISBN 978-0-19-515632-4.
140. "Forced Busing and White Flight". Time. September 25, 1978. Retrieved June17, 2009.
141. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
142. Greenhouse,Linda (June 29, 2007). "JusticesLimit the Use of Race in School Plans for Integration". The New YorkTimes. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
143. "Plyler v. Doe". The OyezProject at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. The Oyez Project at IITChicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
144. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).
145. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
146. Levy v. Louisiana, 361 U.S. 68 (1968).
147. Gerstmann,Evan (1999). The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure ofClass-Based Equal Protection. UniversityOf Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-28860-4.
148. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
149. DanielE. Brannen; Richard Hanes (2001). Regents of theUniversity of California v. Bakke 1978. Supreme CourtDrama: Cases that Changed America. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on February 6,2016. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
150. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
151. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
152. Alger,Jonathan (October 11, 2003). "Gratz/Grutter and Beyond: theDiversity Leadership Challenge". University ofMichigan.Archived from the original on August 13,2011. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
153. Eckes,Susan B. (January 1, 2004). "Race-ConsciousAdmissions Programs: Where Do Universities Go From Gratz and Grutter?". Journal ofLaw and Education. Archived from the original on February 6,2016. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
154. Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
155. Howe,Amy (June 24, 2013). "Finally! The Fisher decision in PlainEnglish". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June30, 2013.
156. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
157. Denniston,Lyle (April 22, 2014). "Opinionanalysis: Affirmative action — up to the voters". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April22, 2014.
158. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
159. Reed v. Reed 1971. Supreme Court Drama: Cases that Changed America. – via HighBeam Research (subscriptionrequired). January 1, 2001. Archived from the original on February 6,2016. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
160. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
161. Karst,Kenneth L. (January 1, 2000). Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Encyclopedia of the AmericanConstitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on February 6,2016. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
162. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964).
163. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
164. Epstein,Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing America:Rights, Liberties, and Justice (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. p. 775. ISBN 978-0-87187-613-3. Wesberryand Reynolds made it clear that the Constitution demandedpopulation-based representational units for the U.S. House of Representativesand both houses of state legislatures.
165. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).
166. Aleinikoff,T. Alexander; Samuel Issacharoff (1993). "Race andRedistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after Shaw v. Reno". Michigan Law Review. 92 (3):588–651. doi:10.2307/1289796. JSTOR 1289796.
167. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
168. "Bush v.Gore". EncyclopædiaBritannica. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
169. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
170. Daniels,Gilda R. (March 22, 2012). "Fred Gray:life, legacy, lessons". Faulkner Law Review. Archivedfrom the original on February 6,2016. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
171. Dunn,Christopher (April 28, 2009). "Column:Applying the Constitution to Private Actors (New York Law Journal)". New York CivilLiberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State.Retrieved November 23, 2013.
172. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
173. Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880).
174. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co, 419 U.S. 345 (1974).
175. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).
176. Flagg Bros.,Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978).
177. Bonfield,Arthur Earl (1960). "The Right to Vote and JudicialEnforcement of Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment". Cornell LawReview. 46 (1).
179. "2 U.S. Code§ 6 - Reduction of representation". LII / LegalInformation Institute.
180. Friedman,Walter (January 1, 2006). Fourteenth Amendment. Encyclopediaof African-American Culture and History. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on July 14, 2014.Retrieved June 12, 2013.
181. "Casetext". casetext.com.
182. Chin,Gabriel J. (2004). "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and theRight to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of theFourteenth?". Georgetown Law Journal. 92: 259.
183. Whythis if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right ofsuffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of theabsolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation tomale inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, "persons."They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made,but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearlyexcluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, nosuch form of words would have been elected to express the idea here indicatedif suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.
184. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).
185. Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985).
186. Foner 1988, p. 255.
187. Foner 1988,pp. 255–256.
188. "Sections 3and 4: Disqualification and Public Debt".Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. June 5, 1933. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
189. "Pieces ofHistory: General Robert E. Lee's Parole and Citizenship". PrologueMagazine. 37 (1). 2005.
190. Goodman,Bonnie K. (2006). "HistoryBuzz: October 16, 2006: This Week in History". History NewsNetwork. Archived from the original on October 19,2007. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
191. "Chapter 157:The Oath As Related To Qualifications", Cannon'sPrecedents of the U.S. House of Representatives, 6, January 1, 1936
192. "Annotation37 – Fourteenth Amendment Sections 3 and 4 Disqualification and PublicDebt".FindLaw. Retrieved October 17, 2013.
193. "Perry v.United States 294 U.S. 330 (1935) at 354". Findlaw.com.Archived from the original on January 23,2013. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
194. Liptak,Adam (July 24, 2011). "The 14thAmendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out". The New YorkTimes. Retrieved July 30, 2011. In recent weeks, law professors have beentrying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some havejoined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling.Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existingdebts. Still, others say the President may do what he wants in an emergency,with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment.
195. Balkin, Jack M. "3 ways Obamacould bypass Congress". CNN. Retrieved October 16, 2013.
196. "Our NationalDebt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says". The Atlantic.May 4, 2011.
197. Sahadi,Jeanne. "Is the debtceiling unconstitutional?". CNN Money. Retrieved January2, 2013.
198. Rosen,Jeffrey (July 29, 2011). "How Wouldthe Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself?". The NewRepublic. Retrieved July 29, 2011.
199. Chemerinsky,Erwin (July 29, 2011). "TheConstitution, Obama and raising the debt ceiling". Los AngelesTimes. Retrieved July 30, 2011.
200. Engel,Steven A. (October 1, 1999). "The McCulloch theoryof the Fourteenth Amendment: City of Boerne v. Floresand the original understanding of section 5". Yale LawJournal. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on December 18,2006. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
201. Kovalchick,Anthony (February 15, 2007). "JudicialUsurpation of Legislative Power: Why Congress Must Reassert its Power toDetermine What is Appropriate Legislation to Enforce the FourteenthAmendment". Chapman Law Review. 10 (1). Retrieved July19, 2013.
202. "FindLaw:U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, p. 40".Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010.
203. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).
204. Eisenberg,Theodore (January 1, 2000). Katzenbach v.Morgan 384 U.S. 641 (1966). Encyclopediaof the American Constitution. – via HighBeam Research (subscription required).Archived from the original on September 24,2015. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
We use cookies to improve your experience and to help us understand how you use our site. Please refer to our cookie notice and privacy statement for more information regarding cookies and other third-party tracking that may be enabled.
© 2024 Your brand name
