BRIA 7 4 b The 14th Amendment and the "Second Bill of Rights" - Constitutional Rights Foundation
Application of the Bill of Rights to the states—undoubtedly one of the most important . was not meant to change the relationship between the federal and state. Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States . The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as .. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles .. The relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was.
It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.
Senator from Michigan Jacob M. Howardauthor of the Citizenship Clause The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship. There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.
Many things claimed as uniquely American—a devotion to individual freedom, for example, or social opportunity—exist in other countries.
But birthright citizenship does make the United States along with Canada unique in the developed world. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause  —described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act ofnamely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University"A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause. Wilkins the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship.LAW 7010: Constitutional Law: The 14th Amendment
The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship. At the time of the amendment's passage, President Andrew Johnson and three Senators, including Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act   and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship to children born to foreign nationals in the United States. Wong Kim Ark Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.
Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not a loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a citizen of the United States. The State Department views such affiliations as sufficient evidence that an applicant must have lied or concealed evidence in the naturalization process. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.
However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk as well as Vance v. Terrazas holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.
14th Amendment - HISTORY
However, Congress can revoke citizenship that it had previously granted to a person not born in the United States. Privileges or Immunities Clause The Privileges or Immunities Clause, which protects the privileges and immunities of national citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV,  which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other states.
Roe the Court ruled that a component of the " right to travel " is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause: Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Casesit has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.
Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State. ChicagoJustice Clarence Thomaswhile concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause.
Randy Barnett has referred to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion as a "complete restoration" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
Due Process Clause In the case of Hurtado v. Californiathe U. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only against the states, but it is otherwise textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendmentwhich applies against the federal government; both clauses have been interpreted to encompass identical doctrines of procedural due process and substantive due process.
Substantive due process Beginning with Allgeyer v. Louisiana the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause as providing substantive protection to private contracts, thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation; this principle was referred to as " freedom of contract. New York  and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Nebraska the Court stated that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause [w]ithout doubt Kansas,  laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers Holden v.
Hardy,  laws declaring maximum hours for female workers Muller v. Oregon,  and President Woodrow Wilson 's intervention in a railroad strike Wilson v.
New, as well as federal laws regulating narcotics United States v. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. When the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment for the first time inthe justices avoided ruling on the meaning of the due process clause [ Slaughterhouse Cases16 Wallace 36 ].
The Supreme Court did eventually begin to rule on its meaning. Inthe justices unanimously held that the due process clause required state and local governments to give "just compensation" for taking private property for public purposes. Still, this decision which would have pleased John Barron did not connect the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. According to the Supreme Court, "just compensation" was a right within the meaning of the due process clause itself.
ChicagoU. Benjamin Gitlow was a Socialist Party member who had been convicted of writing several revolutionary pamphlets in violation of New York's Criminal Anarchy Act. They contended that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protected a citizen's freedom of speech from state laws as well as national law. While upholding Gitlow's conviction, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press "are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
New YorkU. But the majority of justices did agree that at least some of these rights limited the powers of state and local governments. Following this landmark decision, the Supreme Court on a case-by-case basis applied most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. When the last of these cases was decided inthe Supreme Court had created what amounted to a "second bill of rights" limiting the actions of state governments just as the original Bill of Rights had limited the national government.
See the chart below: