• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

W:276]14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc

Iron_Merc

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
194
Location
Upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Click to expand...

Ah more homework yay!
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.


The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Click to expand...

The key word there is " born". A fetus is not born. A woman coming to an age of being able to birth a child has been born and has rights. That which grows within her has no such rights.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Click to expand...
A fetus is not recognized as a person under the Constitution.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

NeverTrump said:
Ah more homework yay!
Click to expand...

You might consider making a new account or changing your username. Your movement failed to stop Trump, in case you didn't notice.

1ijgu6.jpg
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Click to expand...

I agree with the decision. If a woman doesn't have domain over her own body, then what rights does she have? I see it as more a 9th Amendment question than a 14th Amendment one... women have a right to privacy consistent with Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965) (see especially Justice Goldberg's concurrence).

The only time I see a potential 14th Amendment anti-abortion argument is only when the fetus reaches the point of viability at roughly the end of the second trimester, consistent with Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe. But even here, the life and/or health of the mother must take precedence over any hypothetical rights of the fetus.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
You might consider making a new account or changing your username. Your movement failed to stop Trump, in case you didn't notice.

View attachment 67264042
Click to expand...

Why are you using a picture of Trump and winning? I thought you wanted to be non-partisan?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

When does a fetus become human ?

IMO it's when brain development begins. Before that it just a collection of cells.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Rich2018 said:
When does a fetus become human ?

IMO it's when brain development begins. Before that it just a collection of cells.
Click to expand...

not sure what you are asking here?
a ZEF is ALWAYS human, always . . .

I think you mean A human, as in noun, as in human being? is that what you are asking?
and if thats the case while even embryologist disagree when that exactly happens all of medical science agrees a fetus is a human being

for me personally, it doesnt matter, human, human being, preborn, unborn, ZEF, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, bobby sally are all meaningless IMO because they dont change anything. Its still two lives and one will be picked as more important than the other no matter what side you are on. the only difference is why and when.

For me in most cases, im always going to value the already born viable mother who is a citizen over the ZEF which is an unknown and may even abort itself. Ill never support violating the womans legal and human rights in favor of an unknown.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no realistic way to enforce a ban on early term abortions without obliterating the basic human rights of all women. Not just the women who want abortions, ALL women. Most women don't even show that they're really pregnant until they're at least half way through their pregnancy. So how would the police even know that a woman was pregnant in the first place without performing an illegal search? That makes stop and frisk look like a joy ride.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Rich2018 said:
When does a fetus become human ?

IMO it's when brain development begins. Before that it just a collection of cells.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the legal question being posed.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

WCH said:
Well click away.
Click to expand...

Posting a website isn't debating. If you've got an argument to make, then make it. If you make solid points, I'll read your link and try to find the holes in your argument. But I can't debate with a website or a video clip or whatever else anyone decides to post. It's a waste of time.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.
Click to expand...

I should qualify this that I am not on the pro-life side of this argument.

That said, on a Constitutional argument and interpretation level I argue that both the opinion of the court and the dissent was in some way in error.

The opinion of the court was based on the idea that the due process clause of the 14th amendment suggested a new, but not absolute, interpretation in "right to privacy." While not limitless the idea was outlawing abortions infringed on a woman's right to privacy in forcing unwanted children ("distressful life" and "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.") The opinion referenced the argument by the Roe side of the debate that the 9th Amendment's was broad enough to cover "other (rights) obtained by the people."

This was a brand new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with references to other decisions that were not based on the idea of "right to privacy" like this.

More direct was the opinions decision that "all persons born" in that same due process clause, or even the word "person" elsewhere in the 14th Amendment, did not include a fetus. But then they go back to a more nebulous interpretation of "states interest" and "viability." The whole thing was problematic jumping around on how their new interpretation of the 14th Amendment applied to all these concepts. Some of the concurring opinions took all of these concepts and actually made matters worse suggesting discussion among the justices was anything but peaceful discourse.

However, the dissent was also problematic.

Some of the dissent also argues in terms of trimester, but that is the least of our problems. Buried on page 173 of the Roe v Wade full decision, which is the Rehnquist dissent, is this little piece of brilliance... "But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law." On the surface that is a factual interpretation but trying to apply that as a counter argument to how the opinion of the court characterized "right to privacy" but not as an absolute suggests the court could not decide on where that line is. In Rehnquist's opinion the concept that the State could justifiably take away a liberty if there was a compelling interest, even if it was a new liberty (argumentative) as designed by the opinion of the court.

No matter which side you agree with, or even which way it could have gone, both the opinion of the court and the argument in the dissent was literally legislation from the bench.

The opinion of the court manufactured a new liberty with their interpretation of the the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The dissent opinion manufactured a new level power to State governments suggesting "due process of law" was enough to limit liberty (with no real qualifications on which liberty was or was not included in the statement.)

In a way it transcends the argument of states rights, and adds in the compelling reason for the individual to lose liberty. The wedge would be how any liberty would be qualified against those given by the Bill of Rights or could be interpreted to fall within that same referenced 9th Amendment.

Roe v Wade may be one of the better examples from that period of American history where politicalization of Constitutional interpretation impacted the balance of power between any government in the US (federal or state) and the people.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

AGENT J said:
not sure what you are asking here?
a ZEF is ALWAYS human, always . . .

I think you mean A human, as in noun, as in human being? is that what you are asking?
and if thats the case while even embryologist disagree when that exactly happens all of medical science agrees a fetus is a human being

for me personally, it doesnt matter, human, human being, preborn, unborn, ZEF, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, bobby sally are all meaningless IMO because they dont change anything. Its still two lives and one will be picked as more important than the other no matter what side you are on. the only difference is why and when.

For me in most cases, im always going to value the already born viable mother who is a citizen over the ZEF which is an unknown and may even abort itself. Ill never support violating the womans legal and human rights in favor of an unknown.
Click to expand...

Yes, to be clear, "a human" mean a person, a man or woman.


There has to be a limit as to when a baby or fetus in the womb can be terminated unless you would basically a living, breathing creature.

There's no right answer here just opinion. I would say the line is drawn at brain development.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Cordelier said:
Posting a website isn't debating. If you've got an argument to make, then make it. If you make solid points, I'll read your link and try to find the holes in your argument. But I can't debate with a website or a video clip or whatever else anyone decides to post. It's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure someone will debate you...I'm beat.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

WCH said:
I'm sure someone will debate you...I'm beat.
Click to expand...

Well, C'mon on back when you've rested up then. I could have wasted a half hour of my life responding to your link, and at the end of it, you'd still be just as beat.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

What about the rights of the unborn? Aren't they a person also? What happened to their rights? I have yet to see any scientific evidence that a fetus is not a person.

"deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

gino said:
What about the rights of the unborn?
Click to expand...
There are none.

Aren't they a person also?
Click to expand...
They are not.

What happened to their rights?
Click to expand...
Did not come into existence.

I have yet to see any scientific evidence that a fetus is not a person.
Click to expand...
That is because you have no clue what is a person. Post the scientific definition.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Sorry but you haven't given any basis or proof that a fetus isn't a person. I'll go first:

Why is it okay to kill a fetus that is developed enough to survive on it's own?
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Rich2018 said:
1.)Yes, to be clear, "a human" mean a person, a man or woman.
2.)There has to be a limit as to when a baby or fetus in the womb can be terminated unless you would basically a living, breathing creature.
3.) There's no right answer here just opinion. I would say the line is drawn at brain development.
Click to expand...

1.) i figured, thank you for clearing that up
2.) i agree but im totally fine with Rvw being at 24 weeks and all the exceptions that are allowed
Im on record many times sayign id even be fine with RvW movign down to 20 weeks since the earliest possible viablity is 21 weeks. But i would still want all the excpeptions in place. SO with that it kind of makes the 20 vs 24 week thing basically meaningless cause its super rare any abortion happens after 21 weeks that isnt already withtin the exception rules . . .98.6% happen before 21 weeks.
3.) well depending on the actual topic i do agree

the issue is with many things though people arent educated on the topic or they pick statements that are very vague.
take your statement for example and its ability to be vague in a deeper discussion . . what is brain development? the brain is present alone? or something in the middle like its there and doing some basics but not really fully connected, no pain receptors or ability to be self-aware or the brain is present and it can feel pains (which at the earliest possible time frame is 24 weeks because of cortex formation and many feel its probably later)

now i am by no means knocking your opinion, i think its a solid one im just saying to many people on both sides have kneejerk reactions sometimes and talk past eachother and done even fully understand which each is actually saying.
 
Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:
Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Click to expand...

Unclear on your connection to the 14th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom