Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Early talk
It tells you what the text of the amendments means other than the exact text from the constitution is hgreatthat way you understand what it is saying without taking so much time to look up the words.

The prior contributor's emphasis on the "equal protection" clause over the "due process" clause (neither of which refer to all of section 1...just a part of it) in the current article is interesting. Most constitutional rights applying to states that people recognize today arose out of DP not EP: right to abortion; right to birth control; etc...plus basically the rights referred to in the bill of rights. EP issues usually only arises in matters like discrimination. Reliance on EP has expanded. For example advocates of homosexual rights used to primarily argue for the recognition of homosexual unions under DP now also argue that recognition of homosexual unions should be recognized under the EP clause. B 22:39 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

"The framers' main intent was to ensure equal protection regardless of race, while including some protection of the right to vote." This has to be changed. First, there was no "main intent," for every section there were at least two main intents. Second, even if we were to name one or two, there is no reason we would name these over others. Many scholars would argue that the "main intent" was to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. (See Michael Kent Curtis, "No State Shall Abridge") Third, while those that wrote the amendment certainly wanted to protect the right to vote they fell FAR short of consensus on the topic, which is why there is no protection for the right, but only consequences in rerpresentation for its denial. On January 22, in committee, it was proposed that the amendment protect the vote outright. This proposal got 2 yeas, and 10 nays. (See Benjamin B. Kendrick, "The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction, pg. 55)

I think that there is one very important outcome of the Fourteenth Amendment that deserves mention in the main article: U.S. corporations have come to be defined as virtual 'persons' under this law. Under this interpretation, the right of a corporation to make advertising claims or to contribute to political campaigns are protected in the same manner as an individual person's free speech or political activity. The implications for U.S. society and for the world have been enormous.

Before this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment became entrenched, corporations existed under state charters. People took it for granted that corporations could and should be regulated as governments saw fit. It is a matter of vigorous and important debate whether the former approach is better than our current situation. The Wikipedia article should, I think, make reference to this issue and provide links to related sites.

History of the text??
Given that this one has had such huge implications for the US legal system, it would be nice if somebody in the know could write a bit about the history of its writing and passing: who suggested it, who wrote the text, why was it worded the vague way it is, etc. -- 84.57.71.188 09:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The principal framer was Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), called by Hugo Black among others, "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment" in his dissent in Adamson v. California. The history of its writing and passing and its later fate are entwined in a complicated and very important way in the tragic history of later (mis)interpretation. By very circuitous routes, it has pretty much returned to its original understanding (largely through the "activist" Warren Court and its "activist" predecessors.) It originally and was explicitly stated by Bingham in Congress - and manifestly - was meant to overturn Barron v. Baltimore and was intended to essentially apply the Bill of Rights to the states by the "privileges and immunities" clause. Unfortunately the Slaughterhouse Cases utterly screwed up the law, made the P & I clause a dead letter, and the courts had to take over a century to stretch the due process and equal protection clauses - that's why the writing seems vague - to do the work intended for the P & I clause. Black was made fun of at the time, with a supposed "refutation" by Charles Fairman, but subsequent work has shown he was basically right in his book-length dissent covering the history of the 14th. Akhil Amar's Bill of Rights is a/the standard first rate work with a lot of history - see if I can find where it went on my shelves - I clearly have expressed a POV here, but I don't think it wrong to say that the main trend in law and scholarship has been as I say.--John Z 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The principal framer was Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), called by Hugo Black among others, "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment" in his dissent in Adamson v. California. There were multiple versions of the Amendment proposed to the committee responsible for its creation. The first version would have required equal protection of a set of rights that would have been defined by an act of Congress. Concern by Republicans that a later Congress, dominated by Democrats, would use this new Congressional authority in ways that the Republicans would disaprove of, Bingham changed the wording from a positive grant of legislative authority to a negative restriction on the rights of the States to violate the "Privilages and Immunities" of the citizens of the United States, or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

For an excellent overview of the intent and understandings of the drafters and those that voted on the amendment in Congress see Chapter 7 "The Intentions of the Drafters of Section One" of Earl M. Maltz's book "Civil Rights, The Constitution, and Congress, 1863-1869." The conclusion drawn in this book is that Bingham (the author of the amendment) and Howard (the representative who reported the bill from committee) almost certainly considered the rights of the first 8 Amendments to be incorportated into the concept of "Privilages and Immunities," while it is suspect that their contemporaries agreed. Other authors of note on the subject include Charles Fairman, Raoul Berger, James E. Bond, and Michael Kent Curtis

After first reading the 14th Amendment to grant Congress only the authority to enforce the rights found in the Civil Rights Bill, the Court (beginning with a dissent by Hugo Black) has embraced the concept of incorporation. However, while the framers of the Amendment most likely intended any incorporation to be accomplished by the Privilages and Immunities clause, the later courts have read nearly all of the Bill of rights (and other rights as well) into the Due Process clause. It originally and was explicitly stated by Bingham in Congress was meant to overturn Barron v. Baltimore and was intended to essentially apply the Bill of Rights to the states by the "privileges and immunities" clause ("the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States ... are cheifly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States" - Bingham, followed by a verbatim reading of the first eight amendments; Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, app. 84 1871 - Note this statement was made after ratificaton). Bingham believed that the States were already restricted from violating the rights found in the first 8 Amendments by virture of the Comity Clause and the Due Process requirement of the Fifth Amendment, and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the Fourteenth Amendment was simply a restatement of the law, properly understood. Unfortunately the Slaughterhouse Cases, which based the interpretation of "Privilages and Immunities" on an earlier discussion of the meaning of these terms found in Confield v. Coryell, made the P & I clause a dead letter, and the courts had to take over a century to stretch the due process and equal protection clauses - that's why the writing seems vague - to do the work intended for the P & I clause. Black was made fun of at the time, with a supposed "refutation" by Charles Fairman, but he has been vindicated by history. Akhil Amar's Bill of Rights is a/the standard first rate work with a lot of history - see if I can find where it went on my shelves - I clearly have expressed a POV here, but I don't think it wrong to say that the main trend in law and scholarship has been as I say.--John Z 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (as altered by anonymous user, 23:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Exclusion of Native Americans
Someone should note that Native Americans were excluded from this amendment untill Standing Bear brought the matter to court in 1879. Also note that there was a trial to decide whether or not an Indian was a person and could bring suit against the government.

I just feel that this should be mentioned as I see it has been oddly omitted.

The 39th Congress had no intention of including Indians. They considered "subject" to mean "fully and completely subject." In light of the recorded debates I am astonished that there could be any question on the subject. See The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, First Session, May 30th, Page 2897 at Mr. Williams. Notice that Howard, a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, certainly disagrees that Indians are included.


 * 1) Actually, american indians (of untaxed tribes) were never included under the 14th Amendment. Some tribes were citizens, some weren't.  This didn't change until 1924, when all indians were granted citizenship by an Act of Congress.
 * 2) The dissenting opinion in Elk v. Wilkins was based on a literal reading of the amendment. If one was born in the United States, under any circumstance, and later subjected themself to the complete jurisdiction of the US, they would be a natural born citizen.--Magic pumpkin 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on external links and POV
I am going to restore the external links that were removed by an anonymous user with the edit summary: "removed extremely biased external links". I've written this elsewhere before, and I suspect I've written this with better elegance elsewhere as well. But while the Wikipedia articles themselves should be unbiased, our sources, and our pointers for additional reading need not be. In fact, getting our information from a great diversity of views is our best way to combat bias. So we should not be deleting external links; rather, if we find the links leaning to much to one point of view, we should be adding other links that lean to other points of view.

&mdash; DLJessup 05:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the principle you state, I do not think it is appropriately applied here. The problems I would see with the linked articles -- and I cannot determine whether the original deleter recognized this -- is that they are drawn from the most polarized extremes of political debate, excluding mainstream commentary entirely, and that the issues they principally discuss are not significantly reflected in the main text. They are also not very good, particularly with regard to historical accuracy.  The Hammerstrom piece is almost diametrically opposed to the other two linked pieces, so the issue should not be over balance per se. (The other two pieces are essentially from the same source, as LewRockwell.com is operated by the founder of the von Mises institute; linking to both simply gives double recognition for a single point of view (and a fringe POV at that).)


 * I have therefore deleted the links (again); the low quality of the essays, their partisan sources, and their lack of substantive relation to the discussion actually contained in the article justify, I believe, this decision. Judge Magney 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I find that I too support this view. If a source is of substantially poor quality or applicability, it should not be referenced.  However, I find it unwise to leave the determination of quality to one individual.  Someone referencing a highly opinionated source may themselves be opinionated, but the person removing that source may be equally, and oppositely, opinionated.  Just my two cents, no action here.--Magic pumpkin 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Right to vote
"Though the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe the Amendment would create new political rights" This statement is misleading and should be changed. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on the 'one man one vote' topic that it introduces, and while it is logically correct, it implies a certain perspective on constitutional jurisprudence that is not accurately attributed to all 'framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.'

The fourteenth amendment was not understood to protect voting rights, nor was it intended to do so. See Harlan's dissent, in Reynolds v. Sims. WikiAce 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This assertion is obviously incorrect. Section 2 of the Amendment expressly penalizes states whose actions "deny", or "abridge" (to male citizens, reflecting prevailing law at the time) "the right to vote." Judge Magney 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Subtracting them from apportionment does not really 'protect' their right to vote. Did the fact that slaves used to count as only three-fifths of a person protect their right to vote? It's irrelevant anyway, as section 2 is a separate matter. The article refers to the equal protection clause as protecting voting rights, which is historically inaccurate. The very fact that the amendment proscribes effects for denying voting rights to male citizens over the age of 21 proves that the amendment does not ban their being denied the right to vote. WikiAce 17:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea that section 2 does not 'protect' voting rights (good call JM - I deserve a d'oh for not remembering the obvious) is eccentric.  Do laws against murder not protect (prospective) murder victims because they only penalize murderers rather than resurrect corpses?  The relevancy of the  3/5 is unclear, and though the wording suggests the EP clause was the one used, it does not say this, it could perhaps be improved, but it is much better and more accurate than the deletion. --John Z 18:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If the 14's apportionment rule is a 'penalty' for not letting certain people vote, the 3/5 rule was a 'penalty' for not abolishing slavery, since then they would have more representation. You might as well call Virginia only having 11 representatives a penalty for not having more people. I don't really know what's unclear about that. When you use a semicolon, you are continuing a thought—and this article, as it reads now, makes it very clear by implication that the equal protection clause was intended to protect voting rights, which is factually inaccurate. WikiAce 18:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a non-sequitur. The 14th's rule is manifestly a penalty, and of course was considered one at the time. No one has ever considered it anything different from what it very, very plainly is. Your point with the 3/5th clause is obscure. It is not clear to me that you understand it - the fact that the slave states did not get the "1" they wanted and had to settle for "3/5" (while the anti-slavery forces did not get the counting of blacks as zero that they wanted) could be considered as a penalty for slavery in the eyes of abolitionists and posterity, yes.  The word penalty and your argument regarding Viriginia is silly - shenanigans with votes and keeping slaves are nowadays and in 1868 thought to be bad things, unlike absence of people. Unlike you, I am not sure that the EP was not so intended.  I'd have to check with the references I cited way above and Foner's Reconstruction at least.  I disagree with your point on semicolon usage, but have changed the text to avoid the problem and the suggestion you claim is inaccurate, and now the text makes no real claim subject to reasonable dispute that I can see. --John Z 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The change in apportionment was not considered to be a penalty. Even Democrats at the time did not think it was a penalty, but rather attacked it as bare political expediency.  The disenfranchisement provision, and the fact that the southern states were forced to ratify the amendment was the penalty.  The change in apportionment was a response to the political relatity that, there being no more slaves the South would be counting all of their disenfranchised blacks as 1 instead of 3/5, and therefore would have substantially increased representation in Congress.  The Republicans were not willing to have fought a war to increase the represenation of the opposition.  Plenty of Republicans would rather have given blacks the right to vote, but this was politically impossible, and would have brought about the total rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment, and would very likely have thrown reconstruction back into the hands of the Democratic President.


 * IIRC, and the Wiki 15th amendment page lends a little support, at first it was thought that the 14th might be enough to secure the black franchise, while it was only with later experience of voting prevention shenanigans that it was clear that another amendment was necessary.--John Z 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the House, Thaddeus Stevens introduced debate on the amendment by noting it fell short of his wishes:


 * "I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present state of public opinion. Not only Congress but the several States are to be consulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did not believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify any proposition more stringent than this."


 * Justice Harlan noted that in explanation of this belief, Stevens asked the House to remember "that three months since, and more, the committee reported and the House adopted a proposed amendment fixing the basis of representation in such way as would surely have secured the enfranchisement of every citizen at no distant period," but that proposal had been rejected by the Senate.


 * Stevens explained the impact of the equal protection clause with these words:


 * "This amendment . . . allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all. Whatever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford `equal' protection to the black man. Whatever means of redress is afforded to one shall be afforded to all. Whatever law allows the white man to testify in court shall allow the man of color to do the same. These are great advantages over their present codes. Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on account of the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men. I need not enumerate these partial and oppressive laws. Unless the Constitution should restrain them those States will all, I fear, keep up this discrimination, and crush to death the hated freedmen."


 * He called the second section "the most important in the article." In unmistakable terms, he recognized the power of a State to withhold the right to vote:


 * "If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so to shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive."


 * Mr. Bingham:


 * "The amendment does not give, as the second section shows, the power to Congress of regulating suffrage in the several States."


 * Senator Howard, also a member of the Committee, explained the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as follows:


 * "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of the law?"


 * Continued: "But, sir, the first section of the proposed amendment does not give to either of these classes the right of voting. The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a depotism."


 * So no, the amendment was not understood to confer voting rights upon anyone. Please back up your assertion of the contrary. WikiAce 19:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At most, what you show demonstrates the falsehood of what is not claimed in the article, that the EP protected the right to vote. These quotes make quite clear that section 2 was so intended, which is what the article says, more clearly now.  I hope this is OK.  It never said "confer voting rights"  As I note below, 14th amendment original intent scholarship has greatly changed since Harlan's time, and I will  have to look at more recent sources that look more extensively at the full debates to be more sure that your EP (or P& I) point is correct. --John Z 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

As I noted above in talk, the understanding of the 14th amendment soon after it was passed was violently different from its original understanding and intent, the modern understanding being much closer to the original one. I believe there is some basis for the sentence you deleted. If I can ever find my books and the time, I might even put it back, with references. :-) --John Z 02:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "Application" section
The text that was added was facially incorrect. Section 1 applies to the federal government and, as I recall, has been applied by the Supreme Court to invalidate some Congressional legislation regarding deprivation of citizenship (e.g., depriving a native-born citizen of national citizenship for voting in a foreign election.) Section 2, by its own terms, requires a change in Congressional apportionment under specified circumstances. Section 3 barred a class of individuals from federal office. Section 4 barred the federal government from assuming any Confederate debt. Section 5 empowered Congress to enforce the other provisions of the amendment. Rather than attempting to guess the editor's original intentions and reconstructing a text, I have deleted the new section entirely to allow him/her a clean slate to (re)write on. Judge Magney 12:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Topical points
In the interests of putting some topical impications of the 14th amendment - perhaps a fit a section on some of the every day implications.

Such as: Non-US citizens who have a child in the US, legally now have a child who is a US citizen.


 * I have added more detail on the two High Court cases, Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which frame the issue of jus soli. Personally, I and many of my foreign friends are admirable of the United State's acceptance of the US-born children of non-citizens, as citizens.  Many counries simply don't do this.  That being said; the added material may be objectionable to some people, such as the US-born children of illegal aliens.  I have only reported what is contained within the two rulings.  Both rulings are very explicit to the matters which were before the Court.  Elk v. Wilkins explicitly applies itself to american indians, and Wong Kim Ark (WKA) explicitly applies itself to people legally within the territory of the United States.  This may be particularly contentious, because many people cite WKA as proof that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens; however, it makes no such finding.  If anything, WKA enumerates who are citizens, and the children of illegal entrants are not included in the list.  In short, no whining, gross role backs, or out-of-context quotes, please.


 * Also, there is a statement, "implicit is meaningless". Chief Justice Marshall once said, in a ruling, that the Court only rules on the matter at hand, and that the ruling is only applicable to that situation.  I cannot remember which case that was. If anyone can, please put a reference to it there, as it seems most appropriate to the content.--Magic pumpkin 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether the "under jurisdiction of the United States" should apply to those whose parents are here in violation, defiance and contempt of our nations jurisdiction. RichardBond (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment was not ratified
The 14th Amendment was never ratified Fifteen (15) States out of the then thirty-seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866 and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three-fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following states: Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866. Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866. Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866. Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866. North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866. Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866. South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867. Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867. Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867. Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867. Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867. Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867. Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868. New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.

Link #1 (Great Overview!) Link #2 Link #3
 * For More Info Read These Links

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NarrowPathPilgrim (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 January 2006


 * One can undoubtedly contend the validity of the 14th Amendment, as evidenced by the informative links provided above. However, it is nevertheless important to maintain a certain degree of neutrality in this article, and the underlining of contentious points should be used only sparingly.


 * The author of Link #1's page states that "The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above." Indeed, until a different decision is reached, the 14th Amendment remains a part of the U.S. Constitution, and people will continue to rely on it.


 *  the barefootsworld article! I had looked up the reference for Florida (because it's not listed in this article as having rejected the amendment prior to ratification, unlike the barefootsworld article), and it cited "House Journal" and "Senate Journal". I, of course, immediately look up the House Journal and Senate Journal and find nothing there about Florida ratification. So I'm about to write up a harangue about the barefootsworld article, when I realize—the barefootsworld article author was referring to the Florida House and Senate Journals.


 * — DLJessup (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment and its ratification requires a page of its own. The tidbit in the article doesn't do it justice in the least. Another's comment about the neutrality of Wikipedia is not being reflected, the two viewpoints involving the validity of the Amendment. Being a relatively new user I would not be able to do this effectively and I hope others will be able to. 67.171.43.170 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a marginal topic not worthy of a separate article. There is no mainstream discussion of this issue, nor is it taken seriously (if at all discussed) in academia.  It's akin to the claims that paying federal income tax is voluntary.  The fact that federal courts refuse to hear argument on the issue does not mean that it's up in the air, it means they consider challenges to its ratification frivolous.  Postdlf, law school graduate, 03:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S., not that it's really worth the time to respond to those claims, but please note that the 14th Amendment did not contain a time limit on ratification, so I don't know how the March 24, 1868 date could be significant as a cut-off. From the list above of initial rejectees, Georgia subsequently ratified July 21, 1868 and again on February 2, 1870; Florida ratified June 9, 1868, Alabama ratified July 13, 1868, North Carolina ratified July 2, 1868, Arkansas ratified April 6, 1868, South Carolina ratified July 8, 1868, Kentucky ratified March 18, 1976, Virginia ratified October 8, 1869, Louisiana ratified July 9, 1868, Delaware ratified February 12, 1901, Maryland ratified 1959, and Mississippi ratified January 17, 1870.
 * Even if Ohio and New Jersey's "withdrawal" of their ratifications were effective (which is questionable, to say the least), Ohio re-ratified September 17, 2003, and New Jersey re-ratified November 12, 1980. All states have now ratified it without a doubt, so the claim that it was never ratified is patently false.  And even if those two withdrawals were initially effective, then the biggest consequence is that the Amendment was effective on July 21, 1868, when Georgia, the 28th state not counting Ohio and New Jersey ratified (Alabama also had ratified in the interim), not on July 9, 1868.  Postdlf 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Ackerman is a complete mischaracterization of what his point is. Ackerman is trying to illustrate the revolutionary nature of the Amendment, not question its legitimacy.

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment was not ratified: Burk Hale 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A Georgian resolution isn't a reliable source for the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified. The only possible reliable source on point, methinks, would be SCOTUS (at least for the flat out proposition that the 14th Amendment wasn't ratified; the GA resolution is certainly evidence that segregated GA of the 1950s believed the 14th was never ratified, but your comment here didn't include such a qualifier).  Additionally, one Wikipedia article cannot serve as a source for another Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia editor isn't a reliable source for the proposition that Georgia law enacted to establish its legal position (and not states have disproved the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress in any legal manner) on it's (or other states it references) ratification is unreliable, especially when the Georgia law has not been disproved by the U.S. government for over 50 years and the U.S. government has acquiesced and admitted to the Georgia Memorial by their silence and failure to respond (DEFAULT). The reference to the Wikipedia article in this article should not have been assumed to have been used as a "reliable source" for non-ratification. It was used as other Wikipedia references are commonly used. The bias is obvious as Jersyko persists in stating the memorial is merely a resolution when in fact it has been verified as Georgia Law. Jerseyko's propensity towards segregation issues reveals the direction of the spin employed to avoid the simple facts stated regarding the false ratification, and is typical of those that persist in such political correct agendas. The Georgia Memorial to Congress does not address any politically correct agenda either way, and simply makes note of subversive acts in violation to the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burk Hale (talk • contribs) (on 9 April 2007)

Dear fellow editors: The repeated POV pushing by user Burk Hale has already been addressed in detail at the talk page for 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Yours, Famspear 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Famspear enlarges the shadow on the so-called 14th amendment and the US government by political correctness, and his comments have indeed been addressed and refuted at the talk page for 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress as well. Famspear means to make a personal matter out of this, but I prefer to end that here if possible, and simple state that the truth stands on its own, and that the article here is non-neutral in its avoidance of facts that prove that it was not properly ratified. Also, I'd like to point out that bringing up the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress was only meant to encourage valid discussion on the POV issue with this article.Burk Hale 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of Dred Scott

 * User 69.230.64.206 just deleted the paragraph explaining that the first clause of the Amendment was intended to reverse Dred Scott. Unless there is a very convincing argument for this, I suggest that it be reinserted. Grover cleveland 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reinserted a modified version of the deleted material that I think fits in better with the structure of the article. Feel free to improve.  Grover cleveland 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence since it didn't seem to add anything to the discussion:
 * The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is enclosed within a pair of commas, with the first comma placed before the coordinating conjunction "and."

If you want to reinsert it in the article, please explain what implication this rather obvious fact has for the interpretation of the Amendment. Grover cleveland 12:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a comparatively minor debate about whether "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a restrictive or nonrestrictive clause, and does that difference alter the intended definition of who was included and who was excluded from being a citizen. The phrase occasionally pops up during the debate over so-called "anchor babies," as well as debates over whether suspected terrorists who were born in the United States to foreign citizens ought to be treated differently than other terrorism detainees. It is also a favorite argument of those who believe that compliance with U.S. law is voluntary. --Weazie 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of a Utah Supreme Court decision regarding a bad check conviction?
Regarding the following language in the article:


 * In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968) the Supreme Court said:


 * "In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.
 * To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?
 * How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above."

First, as any lawyer can see, the citation is obviously wrong or incomplete. Second, I do not have easy access to the Pacific Reporter, so someone else may be able to check this faster than I can. However, the "Supreme Court" in question apparently is the highest court of the State of UTAH -- not the United States Supreme Court. Third, this verbiage appears to be obiter dicta in a case involving a bad check conviction, perhaps only tangentially related to the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is printed in various unofficial places on the internet, but I don't trust the web sites. I will try to get a copy of the decision and find out what this is, but I can't deal with it right now. In the mean time, saying this is a "Supreme Court" case in an encyclopedia article -- without more explanation -- is TOTALLY misleading! I argue that the average person would incorrectly assume that this verbiage is from a United States Supreme Court case. Maybe someone else can clean this up before I get to it, though. Yours, Famspear 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote is accurate, as is your conclusion that it was dicta. The case was a 1968 habeas corpus decision by the Utah Supreme Court, most of which is an irrelevant and irreverant blast of resentment against the "social reformer" Supreme Court for attacking state sovereignty through its contemporary expansion of individual rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  "In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress. We have no desire at this time to have the Fourteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In fact, we are not asked to do that. We merely want to show what type of a horse that Court has to ride in order to justify its usurpation of the prerogatives of the states."  439 P.2d at 269.  Except for three District Court of Utah decisions, only Utah state courts have ever cited to this decision.  Two of those three federal decisions cited to it only to clarify that they did not believe the Utah Supreme Court was suggesting that it was not bound to follow SCOTUS precedent; the third was simply the federal habeas proceedings for the same prisoner, Dyett, in tandem with the state court proceedings, and that federal decision didn't refer to the Utah court's 14th Amendment ramblings.  Postdlf 05:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Postdlf: Thanks for the enlightenment, and for the corrections to the article! Yours, Famspear 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment and the Corporation
Since the Fourtheenth Amendment is the go-to law when it comes to understanding the origins of the modern Corporation (specifically corporate personhood) shouldn't there be a seperate section in the article about the impact the Fourteenth Amendment has had upon Corporate Law rather than two paragraphs in the Civil Rights section? The Fading Light 16:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not; there are extensive comments on talk:corporate personhood about how the Court did not use the 14th to create the concept of corporate personhood, but instead found that corporations were encompassed by the term "person" in the 14th. I'm not an expert in this area by any means (worst law school class ever), but that at least suggests that the interpretations of the 14th didn't change the law of corporations as much as the law of corporations changed how the 14th is interpreted.  Postdlf 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more areas for possible discussion
At present, the only discussion of implications for immigrants (legal and otherwise) seems to be that of their children's citizenship. However, in the 1990s, this amendment came up in the context of anti-"illegal alien" and anti-immigrant legislation such as Proposition 187 with respect to denying of equal protection for non-citizens within U.S. borders, especially those unlawfully present. I'd like to see this discussed in the article, but lack the credentials to do it up right.

Also, doesn't the topic of Japanese-American internment with respect to this amendment at least deserve a *little* mention beyond the link at the end to Korematsu? Again, I couldn't do it justice, but it surprised me not to see it discussed. Lawikitejana 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I'm proposing that all content regarding Anchor babies be merged with the Anchor babies article.71.74.209.82 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Section 3 -- Participants in rebellion
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure about this: "The third section prevents the election of any person to the Congress or Electoral College who has engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason."

Below is the text:
 * 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.

It specifically says, "who, having previously taken an oath, as," and then goes on to list certain positions. I read that as being more limited than "any person" ... "who has engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason." Maurreen 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your question in reference to? Have you seen it quoted this way somewhere?  Stick to the Facts 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA status
Did this article have a good article review, per Good article candidates? If not, the tag and the listing on Good articles should be removed. Thanks. Twinxor t 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page histories, it seems the GA tag was added by Quadell on December 14, 2005. Presumably Quadell evaluated the article per GA criteria and found that it passed, but did not leave any comments (there isn't any other, more formal review process).  The article was listed as GA by Llywrch on December 15, 2005 (they weren't used the Candidates subpage at that point). If you disagree, you can list it at Good articles/Review. schi talk  23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof of invalidity? Please
I'm pretty sure that section lacks neutral POV, and really doesn't 'prove' anything, other than the desperation of Georgia to resist the expansion of Civil Rights. I really don't think that section is appropiate to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.104.196 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Court packing
I removed the following fragment from the article:


 * However, it is important to note that as popular as Roosevelt was, his court packing plan failed miserably because it was seen as fundamentally changing the blueprint of the government. Also, we must note Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case, in which the Supreme Court already noted the change in their stance, and their desire or at least felt obligation to inflate the balloon of equality rights liberalism opposed to freedom of contract liberalism.

The court packing plan did fail, and it was unpopular, but things might have turned out quite differently if Senator Joe Robinson, on whom FDR depended to get the measure passed, had not died unexpectedly. So let's avoid that tone of historic certainty that things had to turn out the way they did because. . . they did.

The second sentence is not only oddly written (balloons?) but wrong--Carolene Products came out in 1938.

I would also take issue with the statement


 * Though the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe the Amendment would create new political rights (leading to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, protecting the right of blacks to vote on equal terms with whites), . ..

but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge in this area. The fact that Congress found it necessary to draft the Fifteenth Amendment to secure the voting rights of freed slaves does not necessarily mean that they did not intend to "create" political rights for them in the Fourteenth; after all, the new national citizenship was as significant a political right as can be imagined. Italo Svevo 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarified, "voting rights." Hope you like. Rocketfairy 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing Section on "Citizenship and Civil Rights"
I've just inserted links to the main articles, at the start of the section titled "Citizenship and Civil Rights". Since there are main articles to link to, it seems like this section can be trimmed down a bit.Ferrylodge 05:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Swayne quote
Anyone else feel the Swayne quote is a bit too esoteric for a presumed lay readership? Can we find a more timely or lively reference point to what is doubtless the most important change in U.S. Constitutional history? Rocketfairy 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the Swayne quote. Here's what the article says:


 * "The other two post-Civil War amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). According to Supreme Court Justice Noah Swayne, 'Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta.'"


 * It doesn't seem esoteric to me. Just about everyone's heard of the Magna Carta, and a wikilink is provided for those who haven't.  A wikilink to Swayne is provided too.  He was appointed by Abraham Lincoln, and was strongly anti-slavery; he knew what he was talking about when he compared the Civil War Amendments to a new Magna Carta.  The Swayne quote may not be recent, but it is certainly timely.Ferrylodge 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV TAGS REMOVED - THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER DISPUTE
This article contains non-neutral points of view. Editors have removed content that disputes the ratification of this so-called amendment.Burk Hale 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which editors? The controversy over ratification has a whole subsection, appropriate under WP:NPOV (minority points of view may receive less space and be less prominently placed). Virtually all prominent legal scholars consider the Fourteenth Amendment an Amendment; we don't need to put "purportedly" in front of each mention any more than we need to call Bush the "purported President" because some dispute his election. Readers are welcome to read the controversy section and make up their own minds; we ought not give them the idea that this is an area of major legal dispute. --Rocketfairy 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question, who is removing the content? You imply that mob rule dictates where content goes, if at all. I'm sure that virtually all legal scholars in Communist China believe murdering dissidents or monks in Tibet is totally fine too. If mob rule determines what is fact and what is not here, then we see here the devolvement of mankind at work. I've witnessed with the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article that the word "purported" was demanded by editors if content was not established as a verifiable fact. What's the difference here with this article (that has been clearly shown the so-called 14th Amendment was not ratified in the discussion section)? It IS a major legal dispute. 12 Southern state governments were subversively overthrown to force this amendment upon all the states. "Purported" goes back in the article.Burk Hale 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Burk, you are welcome to characterize Wikipedia policies as requiring mob rule, but they are nevertheless the policies at issue: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view," per WP:WEIGHT. Does anyone on the federal bench dispute ratification? Does the dean of any major law school? Reality may not operate by consensus, but Wikipedia does, so statements such as "'Purported' goes back in the article" don't comport with Wikipedia's process. --Rocketfairy 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Burk Hale: I would argue that a "legal dispute" is a dispute that is actually being handled through the legal system. Unless you can come up with an example of a current dispute in a court of law regarding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no current "legal dispute" about ratification. If a court or similar forum is not currently being used, then not only is there no major legal dispute, there is no legal dispute at all.


 * There may of course be a historical dispute about the topic -- a controversy between or among historians, etc. I think the article already addresss that to some degree.


 * I have not personally researched the matter, but I know of no court decision where the Fourteenth Amendment (or indeed any of the twenty-seven amendments certified as having been ratified) has ever been specifically ruled to have been "not properly ratified." If there is such an example, then perhaps it should be cited. Hint: Dicta in Dyett v. Turner, the Utah Supreme Court case you have cited over and over in the article on the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, is not a ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment -- or on anything else.


 * You say that "[t]his article contains non-neutral points of view." If so, so what? Contrary to what you seem to be implying, the Wikipedia concept of neutral point of view does not require that an article not contain non-neutral viewpoints. The Wikipedia concept of neutral point of view means that varying, competing views, even wildly opposing views, may indeed be presented -- but that all views must be presented so that Wikipedia itself does not take an express position that "this view is correct" or "that view is incorrect." Wikipedia rules do require, however, that minority viewpoints be presented for what they are: minority viewpoints.


 * An article on the Fourteenth Amendment can include information about the certification of the ratification of that amendment as well as information about what people have argued about that point.


 * If you would like to point out specific language that you believe represents a non-neutral presentation, then Wikipedia editors can discuss that.


 * Your argument -- which you have presented in the Georgia resolution article and its talk page -- essentially is that (1) a 1957 Georgia legislature resolution complaining of faults in the ratification process and asking the Congress to declare the Amendment invalid, and (2) non-binding dicta in a Utah Supreme Court case, and (3) the failure of the Federal government to "respond" to the Georgia resolution, somehow combine in some way to result in the legal invalidation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is an extreme fringe, minority viewpoint and is, bluntly, legally frivolous. This is simply your own personal theory, your own unverifiable original research. And you are attempting to re-write this article, as you are attempting again with the article on the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, to reflect your own vision -- to right what you see as the wrong engendered in the ratification process. Yours, Famspear 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A minor issue, but removing policy tags like NPOV is only improper if they were placed in good faith and consensus has not developed for their removal. It is not improper to remove a policy tag placed in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT, or if consensus clearly favors removal. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag. "article does not have a neutral point of view" is not the same thing as "article does not have my point of view".  Right now we appear to be dealing with the latter and not the former.  One editor continually adding the tag back because he disagrees with WP:CONSENSUS could be seen as disruptive WP:POINT making as  stated above.--Isotope23 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced the tag as this article is under dispute in good faith, and the tags placed by me are based on sound, verifiable documentation . The so-called 14th Amendment was not ratified, and the article gives the OPINION that it was. If Consensus (or MOB RULE) is the basis for verification on this website, then there is no such thing as good faith on this website. FACT: The so-called 14th Amendment was illegally "declared" ratified by an illegal executive order after the Congress was subverted by the "Radical Republicans" (puppets). You will find that the duely representative states (not the puppet subversive organizations under the thumb of the new subversive federal government) REJECTED the so-called 14th Amendment.Burk Hale 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Burk, your weighted characterizations aren't doing much to build support for your position. Again, WP:WEIGHT requires that prominence be given to ideas in proportion to how widely they are held. If you'd like to place your position more prominently, please show evidence that it is (1) widely held by experts (say, by law review citations, statements from federal judges or law school deans), or (2) objectively right (say, by citations rather than increasingly hostile invective). (See also.)


 * Again: If you want to call Wikipedia policies "mob rule," so be it. The Internet is a big place and you are welcome to start the site of your choice with the policies of your choice. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia, please heed the relevant policies. You are, of course, invited to criticize them as well. --Rocketfairy 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate Burke Hale bringing the interesting Georgia Memorial of 1957 to Wikipedia, his repeated attempts to push his POV, ignoring several policies including those on concensus and original research, lead me to believe that he will never stop trying to push his theories unless he is blocked from editing the appropriate articles. He's clearly not willing to be reasoned with, claiming he has refuted others when he has done nothing of the kind and refusing to listen when people point out the flaws in his original research. Edward321 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward321, repeating spurious claims about "pushing POV", etc., does not make it fact. It appears that 2 or 3 editors adverse to my editing here is basis for consensus to fabricate falsehoods about me and ostracize me. Its like being pulled over into an alley, beaten and robbed, and then the thugs bring me back out on the street, brush off by jacket and say, "did you trip on your shoe-strings". Its obvious to the wise here what is really going on. I consider it a compliment in a way, as there is not ego to bruise here. Nevertheless, the imcompetence and bias here needs to be exposed. Brow-beating, and ganging up on editors that do not succumb to the dumbed-down, politically correct opinions of others is typical for these times.Burk Hale 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not 'spurious claims' nor 'fabricated falsehoods', reading your posts shows you are pushing your point of view and labling anyone who disgrees with you in a variety on negative ways. And it is more than 2 or 3 editors who have a problem with your edits - Rocket Fairy,   Zantastik, Will Beback, Jersyko, Isotope23, Famspear, and myself (Edward321) have all had problems with your edits.   Edward321 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberty of Contract and General Article Structure
I don't think the following statement is entirely accurate: "The Court overruled Lochner, Adkins, and other precedents protecting 'liberty of contract' in 1937's West Coast Hotel v. Parrish". I think the proper interpretation is that the span of "liberty to contract" was limited and not destroyed as the statement seems to suggest (even if some cases were overruled). The Contract Clause can still be used today to protect against debtor-relief laws.

As far as article structure, I would suggest that we break up and reorganize the substantive Fourteenth Amendment decisions by legal doctrine. As it stands, various Fourteenth Amendment legal doctrines are all jumbled together in the main text of the article and I don't really think that's necessary. If we want to keep the historic perspective, we could simply trace the development of each doctrine. 149.101.1.116 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be broken up by doctrine. As to the other issue, how about: "overruled Lochner and Adkins and held that the Due Process Clause did not protect 'freedom to contract' in 1937's West Coast Hotel v. Parrish"?

Jus Soli in Canada
To the anon who keeps inserting wording claiming Canada does not recognize jus soli; check out the numerous Google results. I found numerous sources asserting that Canada is a country that recognizes jus soli, so the addition of it as a country that does not would appear to be incorrect.--Isotope23 talk 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The anon has reverted again, re-inserting the language about Canada. I have removed it. (Note, I am not Isotope23, who posted the comment above.) I would ask the anon to take a deep breath and calm down. Whether Canada recognizes jus soli is only tangentially relevant to this article, at best. And the sentence as it stands does not even say that Canada recognizes the concept:
 * "This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or 'right of the territory'— does not exist in most of Europe or Asia, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas."


 * The anon keeps adding in "or Canada", despite the fact that the sentence does not mention individual counties. The phrase "is common in the Americas" does not require the reader to believe the Canada recognizes jus soli—"is common" only means that, of all the countries in the Americas, many recognize jus soli, but Canada could just as well be one of those uncommon countries. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and I'd add to the ridiculous statement "hence the lack of a cite"; you don't cite things that are not in the article. I could easily verifiably cite the fact that Canada recognizes jus soli, but the burden to provide verification is on the person adding the text and the anon has provide nothing at all to back up their statements.--Isotope23 talk 11:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I've semi protected this due to consistent vandalism by a dynamic IP editor (as Mateo so succinctly put it in his edit summary, if you feel Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is a slur, take it up with the U.S. Congress; they named it). My apologies to any IP editors wanting to make changes here. If you have changes you want to make during the protection you can add them here and I will incorporate them into the article.--Isotope23 talk 13:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review on hold
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. Among them are:
 * 1) Lack of the inline references in "Civil and other individual rights", "Apportionment of representatives", "Participants in rebellion", ""Validity of public debt", "Power of enforcement", and "Proposal and ratification" subsections/sections.
 * 2) "Civil and other individual rights" subsection should be IMO spit in two subsections (about Due Process and Equel Protection).
 * 3) The text of the amendement in the begining of the article is unnecessary, since all parts of it are repeated in the relevant subsections.
 * 4) References and External Link sections should be merged and List of relevant cases should be moved into a separate article.

This article is important, but in order to remain a Good Article it needs to become better.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Ruslik 07:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no answer, I am going to delist the article. Ruslik 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a TEXT section?
It seems that all of the other amendments' pages have a TEXT section right after the introduction. Wouldn't it be a good idea to add one here too? I realize that the text's sections are all quoted later in the page, but it could facilitate the reading to have all of them together at the beginning. Giancarlodoria (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a Text section. --SMP0328. (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Its" jurisdiction vs "their" jurisdiction
Whenever the Constitution uses a possessive of the United States, it is ALWAYS "their", NEVER "its": So we should either use the original wording "the jurisdiction thereof", or use "their". "Its" is clearly anachronistic. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Art III: 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to THEIR Enemies
 * XIII Amdt: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.


 * In what way is this relevant to the article? BTW, after the Thirteenth Amendment, every amendment that referred to the nation and the States said "Congress" or the "United States" followed by either "the States" or "the several States" (e.g., the Fifteenth Amendment). After the Thirteenth Amendment, "United States" always only meant the federal government of the United States. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 4
Footnote 4 needs to be repaired. Currently it only says that it's a "template". Anyone who knows how to repair it, so that it displays its contents, please do so. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. (There was a stray character in the template name). Thanks for noticing it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) SMP0328. (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't access that page from Google Books. Anyone else having that problem? 75.111.38.114 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Due Process and Equal Protection sections
I think the jurisprudence about the civil rights cases is somewhat jumbled in its current form. It would be more coherent if we split it up into subsections consisting of Incorporation, Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and Equal Protection. Also, we're missing the right to travel from the privileges or immunities clause. Thoughts? Idag (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All material regarding those clauses is chronologically ordered. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses have been used together in advancing civil rights in the States since the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption. As for the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not enough has been done with it to justify giving it a separate section. That's why the current ordering of all that material is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the jurisprudence about the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses is completely distinct. Equal Protection refers to laws that create suspect classes, substantive due process refers to fundamental rights, and procedural due process is heavily used in administrative law. Conflating them together makes no sense. Idag (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They are not completely distinct. There are many cases involving both clauses. Should there be no United States Bill of Rights article? After all, the Bill of Rights consists of 10 distinct amendments. Just because they are distinct doesn't mean they don't have a shared history which should be recognized in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we should scrap the history and, as with any legal doctrines, there are overlaps. However, these doctrines are distinct and notable enough that there is a separate Wikipedia article for each one. I'm just proposing a reorganization, so that anyone who's, for example, looking for the Equal Protection clause can just go straight to that section and view the history and jurisprudence of that clause, as well as a link to the main article for that clause. Idag (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The case law for those clauses is located in the Civil and other individual rights subsection and I don't believe the order of that subsection should be changed. However, I would have no objection to the addition of separate subsections giving a general description of those clauses. SMP0328. (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the description needs to be changed, but let me explain why I find the current structure confusing. The article starts with incorporation, then it hops to the Lochner era (which has nothing to do with incorporation), and then again hops into a discussion of Equal Protection (which has nothing to do with the previous two topics) all because of the time period in which each case came down. The reader then hops back into due process and then hops again into equal protection and incorporation. As a result there is very little discussion of the evolution of each doctrine because the reader doesn't see each one presented as a single legal doctrine. (Btw, the right to privacy wasn't a substantive due process right, as it was based off the penumbras in the Bill of Rights, so I'm not sure what its doing here). Procedural Due Process isn't even mentioned even though its one of the bedrocks of admin law. Here's what I'm proposing:

(outdent)

1. Incorporation

Provide more details about how the amendments were incorporated with a link to the main article.

2. Substantive Due Process

Provide a history of pre-Lochner-era, Lochner, and post-Lochner jurisprudence. By putting it in a separate section we can show how this doctrine evolved into a specific number of fundamental rights (procreation, marriage between the races, parental rights, etc.) and the rational basis test for most laws that don't impact fundamental rights.

3. Procedural Due Process (not sure if the order needs to be switched with Equal Protection)

Discuss the relevant caselaw and the Matthews v. Eldridge calculus.

4. Equal Protection

Again show the evolution of the clause from the amendment's enactment to the present day.

5. Privileges or Immunities

Blurb about the Slaughterhouse Cases and Saenz v. Roe.

I'm really not trying to be combative, but I read the civil rights section, and had to re-read giant chunks of it because of the strange flow. On the other hand, I think the way this article handles the Citizenship Clause is fantastic, as it provides a great overview of its history and jurisprudence. That's why I'm trying to do the remaining clauses in a similar way. What do you think? Idag (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, you've convinced me. Just one thing: the right to privacy has been cited as part of substantive due process in more recent cases (e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas). SMP0328. (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My only input: it's better if you put both Due Processes under one heading, explain it's original meaning in 1215, mention Barron v. Baltimore, and then go into Procedural DP (as the 1215 meaning begins to describe) and Substantive DP in sub-subheadings, etc. Generally, follow the Due process article. Also, I would recommend going in order in which they were expounded: P-or-I, DP (PDP) & DP (SDP), EP, and finally Incorp. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I'll try to get something out this weekend. Quick question, for legal articles, are we allowed to cite caselaw for references since those are primary sources, or do we rely on secondary sources in the form of law review articles? Idag (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are quoting a court decision, that decision can be the source. If you are stating a result of a particular court decision, I recommend using that decision and a third party for sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Case Cleanup
I figured this would be a nice segway into getting a consensus on which caselaw was covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. Looking at the list of cases, there's stuff like Griswold v. Connecticut and Baker v. Carr that wasn't covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. I know there's some recent caselaw possibly suggesting that the right to privacy was rooted in the due process clause, but the original case rooted it in the penumbras of the bill of rights. There was even a separate concurrence where one of the justices stated that he thought that it was a substantive due process right. I think we need to go through some of this caselaw and knock out the ones that don't fit. Idag (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as the abortion caselaw, its been a while since I read it, but wasn't it rooted in the right to privacy, not the Fourteenth Amendment? Idag (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy, which is based on substantive due process. If you want, you can add a reference that Griswold based it on "emanations" coming from "penumbras," but current caselaw places it squarely in the Due Process Clauses (5th & 14th). As for Baker v. Carr, it dealt with the political question doctrine. However, that case is usually read in tandem with cases dealing the Equal Protection Clause's affect on different types of reapportionment. So I feel Griswold and Baker both belong in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the cases are used to support modern caselaw, but they themselves were not based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Maybe replace them with the modern caselaw that's grounded in this Amendment? Also, as far as the right to privacy, are there any sources saying that its based on substantive due process (I just read through the concurrence saying that the court should have grounded this right in due process)? Idag (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Baker dealt with whether an alleged EPC violation regarding legislative apportionment was a political question. So that case does belong in the EPC subsection. Griswold definitely involved the DPC, because that how the SCOTUS applied the right to privacy to the States. Also, in Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS ruled that the right to privacy came from the DPC:"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. [emphasis mine]" SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SMP0328. is correct. Those two cases are DPC cases. It's one of the ironies of that clause being used, as social progressives fought bitterly to challenge any reading into what liberty was (the Lochner era), yet later turned around and used the same action to shore up issues which they valued (Griswold onward). Foofighter20x (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to the above since, on second look, I was pretty much splitting hairs. Idag (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Looking over the article, it looks to be in fairly decent shape. Would anyone feel uncomfortable if I submit a request for peer review so that we can get a laundry list of things we need to do to get to GA status? Idag (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. If the article isn't a Good Article, it's close. SMP0328. (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence
I have removed the following sentence from the Equal Protection Clause section:"The popular understanding of what was encompassed under "civil rights" was much more restricted during the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification than the present understanding, involving such things as equal treatment in criminal and civil court, in sentencing, and in availability of civil services if they apply." That sentence has had a cite tag attached to it since last December and appears to be original research. If a reliable source can be found for that sentence, it can be restored. Unless that happens, it stays here. SMP0328. (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Over Ratification section
Since this entire subsection is a fringe theory, I propose deleting this subsection and adding one or two sentences about this to the proposal and ratification section. Idag (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed that subsection, but don't believe any reference to it should be made. It's clearly a fringe theory and so isn't worthy of inclusion in the article. Good catch Idag. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Text & Background sections
Splitting off the Background section as its own section in the article looks aesthetically displeasing because that section is incredibly short. Instead, I think we should combine the two sections. I understand that some constitutional articles start off w/ the text, but many do not (especially if the constitutional provision being discussed is long). See Article One of the United States Constitution. Frankly, this isn't some guideline set in stone and I think we have discretion to make this article look good instead of trying to make Wikipedia uniform. Idag (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles dealing with Constitutional amendments have a Text section immediately after the Introduction. There is no justification for making this article an exception. With that said, I agree a Background section should be added. It should come immediately after the Text section. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not enough material for a separate Background section. As a compromise how about adding it to the end of the Text section? Idag (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I think if we try, we can create a Background section of at least 3 paragraphs. SMP0328. (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see it then. Idag (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a source about the amendment's background. SMP0328. (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The original intent is a scholarly grey area with regard to this amendment, which is why I was trying to avoid getting into the specifics. Go ahead and add what you think is useful and I'll take a look at it and add other stuff depending on where we go with this. Idag (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to write a Background section tomorrow. Right now, it's late at night and I need to sleep. Feel free to start creating a new and separate Background section using the source I provided and any others you can find. SMP0328. (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created a Background subsection within the Citizenship and civil rights section mostly by using material in that section, but also by adding new material based on the source I provided earlier. Do you feel this should be a separate section? I made it a subsection, because the material was exclusively about Section 1 of the amendment. Of course, feel free to add properly sourced material you feel would improve upon what I've done. SMP0328. (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for SMP0328 and Idag (and any other editors) to hammer out the detail. As reviewer, I am happy enough with this solution in general terms. My comment at this stage is that this sentence - "This represented the Congress' reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott decision which ruled that blacks were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship" - needs a citation. I do not mean a citation of the Dred Scott case, but a journal article or book that states that Congress' purpose was to reverse that case's effects. I'll keep monitoring how things are going. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation added. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me =) Idag (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing added
I have added requested sourcing, or removed material, for any area in the article which had a cite tag. Feel free to add additional reliable sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Corporations, "legal person" under the Fourteenth Amendment
It would be nice to see some entries on this.


 * These might help
 * "The Corporate Return to Power"
 * "Natural vs Artificial Persons"


 * Fixed URLs listed above Joncaplan (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * --Pointyfingers 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur--leaving out the late 19th century Supreme Court case that made corporations people makes this article very incomplete, to say the least. Far more than upholding civil rights, the 14th A. has been used to corporatize the U.S. funkendub 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This would be essential - I just started reading Thom Hartmann's book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights"	and he quotes a Supreme Court justice complaining that the 14th Amendment had been used far more often to defend corporate interests (and this was in the 50s) than to pursue civil rights for the freed slaves. This issue is also what allows companies to lobby under the "freedom of speech" rights meant for flesh-and-blood people.  -  Carter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.158.70.254 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I came here looking for this very topic and was saddened to see it missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.141.210 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a link to Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad under relevant Supreme Court cases. 80.213.10.52 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of information in articles involving case law
In the context of the current (April 09) GA Review, I tagged a number of sentences in this article as requiring or benefiting from having an in-line citation. Some of these tags were removed by another editor without adding citations, on the grounds that the cases cited in the text are the sources for the information in the relevant sentences or paragraphs. Below I explain why I think the tags should stand, and why I will be reverting some or all of the tag removals. The intention of the tags was to identify specific facts, arguments and analysis within the article that needed secondary or tertiary sources in order to ensure consistency with wikipedia's policy on verifiability. This tagging was based on a couple of premises which I perhaps should have spelt out on the review page at the time I undertook the tagging. It reflects what I see as an issue across a large number of WP pages that relate to legal topics, in particular which involve case law.
 * At the heart of the problem is this: judgments of cases are themselves primary sources. As such, they should not in general be relied upon as sources in WP entries. To quote from the verifiability policy:"Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews;...(emphasis added)"
 * WP does not say these sources cannot be used at all. The policy recommends:"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."
 * My understanding of the appropriate way in which to use case law would be:
 * (a) to cite cases, including Wikilinks if available, in order to inform the reader of the cases, dates etc at which certain legal events took place;
 * (b) to cite or quote judgments to the extent that the article is describing what the judges said; BUT
 * (c) to cite other sources, that are not the judgments themselves, in describing the effects those judgments have.

Here is an example from this article, involving one of the sentences which I tagged. The article states:"...the Supreme Court, since Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), has also interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats on a 'one-person, one-vote' basis." This sentence reports how two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted a clause of a constitutional amendment. This statement cannot rely on the citations of the cases themselves, which are primary sources. It is not reasonable to suggest that on the strength of two case citations, "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" could readily verify the claim made in the WP article regarding what was the effect of those judgments. The understanding of the effect of those two judgments must be based on a secondary source. As I indicated at the start of this comment, this is a problem which plagues many articles in the field of law. I encourage all the law students, law professionals, journalists and others who contribute to these articles to just pull out your case law handbooks and textbooks - it doesn't have to be anything as fancy as the Harvard Law Review - and provide secondary sources to ensure verifiability of these articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not Baker v. Carr; you are thinking of Wesberry v. Sanders. The former was a case about justiciability, not about equal protection. The latter case is that which applied "OMOV" to state-drawn congressional districts. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added Wesberry and removed Baker. SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of external link
There has been a recent interchange over whether or not a particular external link should be included in the "External links" section. One party is deleting it because they think what the article in question says is "plainly wrong"; the other is saying it should stay because WP is "not censored". Can I make myself doubly unpopular by suggesting that neither argument appears relevant to the particular situation? What one of us editors thinks about a source's content (eg. "plainly wrong") does not count at WP. What counts is what reliable sources say about things. This is not therefore a reason to delete the link. However, this particular link itself is a problem for at least two reasons. First, it appears to be self-published by the contact person for the host site (though the site makes some claims to suggest reliability). There is no evidence offered that this article has been published elsewhere or peer reviewed. It thus is questionable as a reliable source. Second, the External links section should contain a limited number of links that are particularly useful for those seeking further information. As WP:MOS notes, "Articles can include an external links section at the end to list links to websites outside Wikipedia that contain further information...Avoid listing an excessive number of external links; Wikipedia is not a link repository". This particular article is very specific, and takes a particular line of argument in relation to the article subject. As such, I would suggest it is highly unsuitable for an external links section. The other links under that heading are the right sort of things to be including there. If an editor thinks the arguments put by Roland in his article are important to the subject matter, and provided they are not given undue weight, they should be addressed (including counterarguments by other scholars) in the body text. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording change
Hello, I just changed a few words in the Citizenship Clause section. The pertinent portion said that "Nevertheless, some claim that...."; I changed this to: "Nevertheless, the Heritage Foundation, a conservation organization, claims that..." which more concretely indicates who claims what. This avoids the ambiguous use of such terms like "some claim", which could be construed various ways. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote that the Heritage Foundation is "a conservative group", which is original research; so I removed it. Also, I don't believe it's relevant to that sentence. On the other hand, good job spotting and replacing the weasel words. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, it may not be relevant in the sentence, but calling HF a "conservative" organisation (NOT a "conservation" organisation!) is not OR. It is common knowledge, common sense, and HF use the word to describe themselves. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I actually tend to agree with SMP, though not for the reasons stated. I don't think its original research that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. It is citable (although, I'm not going to provide citations at this juncture, for reasons I'll state in a second), and is cited in the eponymous article here on WP. However, I completely agree with SMP that it is not relevant. If a reader likes to learn more about the Heritage Foudation, she is invited to read our article on it; however, the issue in the sentence is that a group (thus, fulfilling requirement of "some") believes the clause not applicable to a certain class of individuals. In other words, there is not complete agreement as regards the scope of the 14th amendment. Agreed also that removal of weasel words were an improvement.


 * Regardless, I'm happy to see that there are many watching this article. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some other problems/biases in the section on the Citizenship clause. First of all, it does not provide "a formal definition of citizenship" since it does specify that only such people are citizens of the US. In particular, the Amendment makes no judgment on whether children of US citizens born abroad are also US citizens. The wording of this section of the Wiki article also implies it was the intention of the Senators who enacted this Amendment to exclude US-born children of foreigners, by selectively quoting a couple of Senators out of context.

In fact, if one reads the entire section of the Congressional Record that is cited in notes 5,6, and 9 (the latter 2 notes being identical, apparently for emphasis), one sees that the debate was centered on whether Indians should be citizens of the US, and if not, how should the Amendment be phrased to exclude them while simultaneously including former African-American slaves (and their descendents) and even the children of Chinese residents. All the talk of allegiance to foreign powers was made only in the context of children of foreign diplomats and Indian nations that exercise a measure of autonomy. The fact that it is explicitly stated by one of the Senators that this Amendment would grant citizenship to the children of Chinese temporary residents of the US (which was later supported by a Supreme Court decision) rules out the implied interpretation. gmalcolms 05:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

March 6, 2010 revert
The version to which I reverted was correct. The Constitution lacks provision for the loss of citizenship of any country. FastBike (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence. It was possibly misleading. The Constitution does not explicitly refer to loss of U.S. or foreign citizenship, but it is accepted that a person may relinquish either type of citizenship even though the Constitution doesn't refer to such relinquishment. SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?
I'm in no way qualified to assess the claims made by http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html, but a Google search of "14th amendment unconstitutional" returned about 705,000 results. I notice that the article on the Sixteenth Amendment makes no mention of controversy on the constitutionality of the amendment, however, so perhaps this controversy is either not notable enough or outside the scope of Wikipedia. In any case, I just wanted to bring attention to it in case it would be useful to add to the article. 209.129.94.61 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That website is known for advocating fringe theories, such as that the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments weren't validly adopted, but that the Titles of Nobility Amendment was. You should look to more reputable sources for your study of the Constitution. Also, references to the article about the Sixteenth Amendment belong at that article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with SMP. Such assertions do not belong in Wikipedia, until they find basis in a scholarly article, or well respected source. Further, it should be noted that no United States Court has held that the 14th Amendment was not ratified; also, this "theory" enjoys no scholarly recognition. Also, an amendment, by definition, cannot be "unconstitutional." Lazulilasher (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

-- I know there isn't a controversy, but perhaps someone should consider writing up something in here about how this amendment or the article Incorporation of the Bill of Rights has led to fringe conspiracy theories that have motivated people like the Hutaree Militia that was recently arrested, or the online group Guardians of the Free Republics who recently sent letters to 30+ Govenors asking them to step down. I read some of their sites, and they are clearly ... out there, but it might be nice if Wikipedia at least confronted some of these beliefs since they're in the news and a clear debunking might help some people. Perhaps this is covered under some other article about State's Rights or beliefs derived from misunderstandings about present day State's Rights. It seems relevant at the moment. Pip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.138.87 (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)