Guess my nature is contrary, sorry.
The 14th Amendment states:
Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and 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 "equal protection" part is the important bit. It means you can't use suspect classifications, like black/white, male/female, and gay/straight to deny one group of people the rights another group has under the law.
HERE is a lengthy treatise on this amendment, seek out the "equal protection" chapters.
Now, how does this provision in the 14th Amendment, applicable to the states, affect the federal government which is normally subject to only the Bill of Rights. Through the 5th Amendment's reverse incorporation prohibiting the denial of "liberty" meaning "liberty the state provides."
HERE is an analysis of how the 14th Amendment Equal Protection provision gets "reverse incorporated" into the 5th Amendment's protection of liberty. (At p. 1356+)
Quote:
‘‘In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the
states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would
be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser
duty on the Federal Government.’’
‘‘Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area,’’ the
Court has said, ‘‘is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.’’
71 So saying, the court has applied much of its Fourteenth
Amendment jurisprudence to strike down sex classifications in federal
legislation, 72 reached classifications with an adverse impact
upon illegitimates, 73 and invalidated some welfare assistance pro-visions with some interesting exceptions. 74 However, almost all
legislation involves some degree of classification among particular
categories of persons, things, or events, and, just as the equal protection
clause itself does not outlaw ‘‘reasonable’’ classifications,
neither is the due process clause any more intolerant of the great
variety of social and economic legislation typically containing what
must be arbitrary line-drawing.
|
The articles should have more than enough reading to satisfy any urge you have to read up on the topic.
[ 12-10-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]