Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 2

Dred Scott and the Citizenship Clause
In Dred Scott v. Sandford there is a cite to the Slaughter-House cases, which acknowledge that at least part of the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott. This is important when interpreting the "plain language" of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you can wade your way through the opinion in Dred Scott, you realize that the court uses word of citizenship - citizenship of states and citizenship of the United States - in ways almost unrecognizable today. What the language invoked at the time the Amendment was adopted is much different than what the language invokes today.Hypercallipygian (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the article fails to properly reflects what you said? SMP0328. (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation references
The references to the Heritage Foundation are misleading and should either by limited to footnotes, deleted, or counterbalanced with some contrary source. The Foundation is a Conservative think tank, and readers might confuse them as an authority on jurisprudential matters and constitutional interpretation. This is especially confusing where the Foundation's position precedes that of the courts' in the wiki text. Jordanotto (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because that organization has ideological viewpoint doesn't make it unreliable. What parts of the article, where that organization is a source, do you believe are incorrect or misleading? SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't agree with either editor on this one. In a WP article about an Amendment of the US constitution, in general there should not be material included from any non-legal interest group about what might or might not be the case. Talking about original congressional / constitutional debate is fine, subsequent legal cases, and expert opinion, yes; actual interventions by interest groups through actual constitutional legal cases, again OK, but not interest group opinion outside the context of an actual case they are bringing before the court. All this material should be deleted, and the same treatment should be given to the opining of left-leaning or liberal think-tanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the references to Section 2 from the Equal Protection Clause subsection of the Citizenship and civil rights section. That material did not belong in that subsection, part of it was unsourced and none of it added much to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone's points are well taken. Heritage Foundation input should be deleted from the text. However, I still think it would be alright to include them in footnotes. Jordanotto (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship subsection based on original research
Much of the citizenship section is either unsourced, or based on somebody's idea of what this or that case holds. Unless a very narrow and detailed discussion of a case is given it is strictly OR to say that, for example, Wong Kim Ark did not settle the issue of children born to aliens. The wording in this section is almost word for word from Birthright citizenship in the United States of America which has the same problems.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What parts specifically do you feel are not sourced adequately? Just the Kim Wong Ark part? More details about what you are thinking, please. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The following original research, as it is supported only by citations to the Congressional Globe, a primary source.

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.


 * The following statements lack any support, other than perhaps somebody's reading the opinion itself and giving, again, an original research interpretation:

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States. In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985). For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of U.S. citizenship.[18] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), as well as Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.


 * My position is that unless there is a detailed discussion of a specific case in issue, it is OR to reduce a single Supreme Court case to a one-line "holding" . Also, it is OR to pick out this or that statement from the Congressional Globe, as there is no published reference work, just someone's idea of what is important.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That subsection has plenty of sourcing, not just the Congressional Globe. Of course, you are welcomed to add more reliable sources. SMP0328. (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is not to the number of the sources, but to the fact that they are all to primary sources and therefore constitute original research.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Just because it's a primary source doesn't necessarily make it OR. Further, WP:Primary allows for the careful use of reliable primary sources (the Cong. Globe would be one, at least with respect to the first paragraph you highlighted). Also, the text of the passages cited are all descriptive of what was said in the debates and draw no conclusions, which is exactly what WP policy permits. Look at the subjects and verbs: "Howard described," "he was supported" (an awful, passive voice), "Howard further stated"... These are all descriptive claims about the textual author of the clause discussed, and are all cited with a link to the original entry in the record to reflect that. My opinion: it reflects WP's policy to the letter.


 * As for the second block of text: yes, those could use some work. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree primary sources have their place, but this isn't it, particularly when we're talking about extensive legislative materials. How do we know this is a balanced or a fair selection from those materials? There are numerous books on the 14th amendment and the process that lead to its enactment.  Obviously an author may have bias or make errors, but in the context of published sources, those can be more readily identified.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We know because the links to those sources are provided and you can go read them for yourself. It's not like it's a long written work that will take more than 30 minutes to read. It's a few pages of speeches, and is for the most part comprehensible. And I have to say again, the comments are descriptive of what's being said. There's no real room for an author's bias to creep in there except through intentional omission of relevant data. But if that's your concern, then go to the cites and follow the links and verify for yourself. Otherwise you are just assuming bad faith, which WP recommends you not do. See: WP:AGF. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The debate goes on for about 5 triple-column pages in the Congressional Globe. That debate is summed up in the article in three or four sentences, with no citation to any source other than the Congressional Globe itself. It is this summarization to which I object on OR grounds, particularly when there are numerous published sources on the topic.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Electoral college
If a state legislature were to appoint Presidential electors, rather than allowing its citizens to elect said electors, would that cause the state's representation in the House to drop to 1 member? This has been asserted at Talk:National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact. Thanks,  Tisane  talk/stalk 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Ratification Controversy
I don't quite get the claim that the 14a ratification controversy is the same as the tax protest arguments at the 16a page and should therefore be removed. The ratification of the 14th amendment was a major impetus for the reconstruction acts which were inextricably bound up with the ratification for the 14th amendment. Certainly no parallel exists for the 16th amendment.

Even if the history was the same, removing the content entirely certainly does not seem to be NPOV, and it would at least warrant including a reference to the tax protest arguments at the 16a page. But it wouldn't make any sense to reference tax protest arguments in this article, would it? Because what do the arguments of tax protestors have to do with the history of the ratification of the 14th amendment? Very little AFAICT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.130.147 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, the 16a article includes a link to a separate page for the controversy surrounding the ratification of the 16th. Unless there is such a page for the issues involved with the ratification of the 14th that can be linked within this article then I submit the content belongs in this article. If you feel the content is POV or poorly written feel free to suggest edits, but scrubbing the text so the article reads as if this amendment was ratified in a perfectly ordinary manner is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.130.147 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to tax protest arguments etc, but the sourcing for what was added did not appear to include any reliable sources, and to me as an outside reader read as a WP:FRINGE theory (I am prepared to stand corrected on this - it isn't my field). Until it can be shown to be covered in reliable sources, it should not be included. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to locate more accepted sources where appropriate, although the information contained in the original cites is easily verifiable from independent authorities (e.g., the resolutions passed by state legislatures are widely available through official sources and/or contemporary authors). The circumstances surrounding the proposal and adoption of the 14a were extremely unusual by any objective measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.130.147 (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again with the proviso that this isn't my field, your second attempt was better - i've tweaked it to stick to the State Dept's published history - better than Thomas Legion, the reliability of which wasn't clear. It would be good to at some point get a scholarly text confirming this interpretation, but we are at least in the right ball park now. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

US vs Wong Kim Ark
In the "Citizenship Clause" section, the two paragraphs describing US v Wong Kim Ark are misleading because they are incomplete (paragraph 1) and bring up irrelevant information (paragraph 2). Paragraph 1 reads: "The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of US v WKA... The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in US.[ref]" and Paragraph 2 reads: "The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. [ref]] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment, [ref] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[ref] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v Doe... and INS v Rios-Pindea...[refs]"

Since the conclusion of this case is succint and clear, it would be better to quote it directly rather than use references that interpret it. For instance, the decision is not dependent on a definition of "legal" and "illegal" immigrants.

I suggest that those two paragraphs be replaced by the following (with appropriate wiki links and case links):

The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of the US vs Wong Kim Ark... The court ruled that: "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." [ref: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Syllabus, 1st paragraph] Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent: these include Plyler v Doe and INS v Rios-Pineda. Cmind123 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the legal-vs.-illegal immigrant parent question was not germane to the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 and should not be entangled into the discussion of that case here — nor, for that matter, in related articles such as Citizenship Clause, Birthright citizenship in the United States, or United States nationality law.


 * Although I realize court decisions are sometimes viewed as reliable enough on their own to be usable as primary sources, we need to be careful when doing this. I've been involved in more than one situation where another editor insisted a court case "obviously" supported his own tendentious position and dismissed my objections to his "obvious" interpretation as WP:OR.  There certainly are people on all sides of the question of whether Wong Kim Ark supports, opposes, or is agnostic on US-born children of illegal immigrants.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I reviewed the guidance on primary vs secondary sources and used a summary instead of the direct text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmind123 (talk • contribs)

Privileges or Immunities Clause
Is there some reason why the article does not refer to the "privileges and immunities" clause (i.e., the first clause of the second sentence)? Admittedly, the clause was pretty much made a dead letter by the Slaughterhouse Cases, but I think some mention should be made of the decision and its consequences. Evansdb (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You meant the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The former is mentioned here. SMP0328. (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote the text?
Please add info on who came up with the actual wording of the text, especially the first article. Thanks. -- 77.189.75.235 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Full Disclosure of Ramifications of the 14th Amendment
I have added to the opening description of the 14th Amendment, fully disclosing how the 14th Amendment changed the nature of the federal government in relation to the citizen. The following was added:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States; however, with the Fourteenth Amendment, all citizens of the United States became party to a trust agreement with the federal government as assumed beneficiaries which was instated for the assumed benefit of the citizen. This implied private contract agreement is still in effect today, effectively nullifying any citizen's Constitutional rights, unless he or she legally expresses his or her Will not to be party to the private contract.

If anyone doubts the validity of the above, I encourage you to study the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court Cases, and other U.S. Codes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Settling of a trust requires specific settlement language. Please point to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment that has that effect. Also, how does a document guaranteeing constitutional rights nullify any of them? Please show me what rights are "nullified" by the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you referring, perhaps, to the "right" of a restaurant owner to refuse to allow non-White customers into his restaurant? The "right" of an executive in a corporation to fire his secretary for refusing to have sex with him? What rights? bd2412  T 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Citizenship was given blacks and everyone born in the US by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still in effect. It declared that everyone born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power is a citizen, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The 14th made the law part of the Constitution. Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993); Utah Supreme Court 1968
Loonymonkey UNDID A LOT of work I put into this article on the basis of this citation. I understand the concerns.

My opinion is the information's shocking, and calls for looking at the the XIV Amendment in a way that scares most people.

Quoting:


 * "[9, 10] The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.(16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).  Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." -- JONES V. TEMMER, 829 F. SUPP. 1226 (D.COLO. 1993)

How can this be incorporated into this article without starting another Civil War over claims of WP:OR and WP:RS?

How can this citation overcome WP:RS?

I can't seem to find an online source at the moment I consider non-editorial and neutral.

Then there's the Utah Supreme Court's declaration on the XIV Amendment:

In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266., discussed issues and contentions surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared:


 * "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 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."

CLICK HERE TO VERIFY.

How can this citation overcome WP:RS?

We're getting into a discussion about what people are prepared to accept. -- Exxess (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No online reliable secondary sources --then it cannot be used. Rjensen (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether they are online, just whether they are reliable. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This all being said, Loonymonkey is requiring a committee be assembled before that material can be included in this article. Those citations were exorcised from this article.  SEE: edit history and The Exorcist (film). -- Exxess (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the way Wikipedia works, particularly when trying to make large changes to an established article. It's called consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * JONES V. TEMMER, 829 F. SUPP. 1226 (D.COLO. 1993) meets WP:RS


 * Here's a secondary source referencing Jones v. Temmer, January 28, 1993; U.S. District Court in Denver; Colorado -- Exxess (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's essentially a press release or blog post, not a WP:RS. And the Fourteenth Amendment isn't even mentioned in there.  I'm not sure how it would relate to this article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, you're stating a very unconventional legal interpretation as if it were fact. If it were even going to be considered, it would have to be framed as interpretation or analysis and weighted properly. But who is making the interpretation? Whose analysis? By pulling together disparate quotes and examples from the records of actual case law, you seem to be engaging in WP:OR.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is WP:OR. Find a reputable secondary source who adopts this idiosyncratic interpretation, and we can discuss the appropriate WEIGHT to give it. THF (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the critique. Much appreciated...  The courts have consistently adopted that idiosyncratic interpretation and have discussed the two classes of citizenship -- state Citizenship with rights secured against state action by state Constitutions and federal citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  There are many court cases on this, some occurring as a result of the Japanese being placed in U.S. internment camps during WWII, and those two classes of citizenship continue to exist, per Jones v. Temmer, which is a 1993 court case.  See the State citizenship article.  I'm concerned about the use of the sources in that particular article; BUT, I think Loonymonkey has a perfect solution -- frame the matter as interpretation or analysis, due to concerns with sources.  The federal government is well aware of the two classes of citizenship, and that's reflected in the U.S.C.  Please see the article on State citizenship.


 * All this being said, this article on the XIV Amendment, although well intentioned, is very imprecise and makes a number of assertions that are inaccurate in law or at law, in my opinion. There's more to the XIV Amendment than wanting to send black children to public school in the deep south.  There are articles specifically discussing the railroads in regards to the use of the word "person" under the XIV Amendment.  See State citizenship article.  The Constitution for the United States of America states "We the People," not "We the persons," legal distinction being made.  The XIV Amendment never uses the word "People."  See person.


 * Also, in regards to state Citizenship -- George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson could not be citizens under the XIV Amendment because that amendment did not exist in their time, so they were state Citizens of Virginia and Pennsylvania. This article is implying Article IV, Section 2.1 Citizenship was ABOLISHED by the XIV Amendment, a very incorrect assertion.


 * 42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982, CONTINUES to make a lawful distinction between federal citizens of the United States and white Citizens (non-Fourteenth Amendment Citizens outside the jurisdiction of Congress; SEE: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson above): "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.")


 * That's still in the code, the distinction between U.S. citizens and white Citizens. Why is that?  This article makes no mention of any of this, which is a heck of an oversight. -- Exxess (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Exorcist (film) -- Loonymonkey, I was just being a wiseguy. I couldn't resist. -- Exxess (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 42 U.S.C. 1982 is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It's an antidiscrimination law. It's meant to prohibit racial distinctions, not require them, and it certainly is not making one. It requires Blacks to have the same rights as Whites regarding the categories mentioned by it. SMP0328. (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's the intent, but it does not say "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right ... as is enjoyed by all white citizens of the United States ..." It's clearly indicating that if one is a citizen of the United States, then one is not white. -- Exxess (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That law has always been applied to fight racial discrimination, not legitimize it. Are you suggesting there is a legal distinction between "citizens of the United States" and "white citizens"? SMP0328. (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't write 42 U.S.C. § 1982, although, I will concede when a citizen of the United States resides in a State, the white citizens cannot violate nor abridge the rights of the citizens of the United States, said citizens of the United States obviously enjoying federal protection from white citizens to this day. That was the problem in the South before and after the Civil War -- violation of civil rights and privileges by white citizens, which citizens of the United States had to be protected from.  The code clearly does not say white citizens of the United States. -- Exxess (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are misinterpreting 42 U.S.C. 1982. Please provide reliable sourcing for there being a separate type of citizenship for Whites. SMP0328. (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SEE Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Never overturned.


 * Keep in mind, too, that under the XIV Amendment there is not one mention of the word "People." The word consistently used is "person." In the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1982: "All persons of the United States shall have the same right ... as is enjoyed by white People. The code is saying U.S. persons/citizens need federal protection from white People, evidenced by the South, and the code is saying U.S. citizens are not white People. -- Exxess (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Constitution begins, "We the People," not "We the persons." The XIV Amendment only uses the word "person," never People. -- Exxess (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are federal citizens. Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226, 1234-35 (D. Colo. 1993):


 * "... Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government;  ..."


 * There were no citizens of the federal government before the XIV Amendment. -- Exxess (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you believe the Titles of Nobility Amendment is part of the Constitution? SMP0328. (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article needs to make mention of the of the fact there were no citizens of the federal government prior to the XIV Amendment. There's not enough material about the nature of the XIV Amendment. -- Exxess (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As to your question: "No belief.  Only know." -- Exxess (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982
On exorcising 42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982 from this article:


 * "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."

That does NOT say anything about citizens of the United States having the same POLITICAL RIGHTS as white citizens.

42 U.S.C. § 1982 is strictly speaking about property, meaning a legal distinction is being made between citizens of the United States and white citizens. -- Exxess (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude: here's the issue. Your personal opinions about the 14th amendment and section 1982 are entirely irrelevant. Find a secondary reliable source that agrees with you, and then we can discuss the degree to which it belongs in the article. Everything you've added to the talk page so far has been entirely unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a chat forum. THF (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Dude" -- here's the issue. Wouldn't Jones v. Temmer be a SECONDARY SOURCE relative to the 14th Amendment?  Jones v. Temmer is 1993. 1-9-9-3.


 * The 14th Amendment is 1868. Get it, dude?  1-8-6-8.


 * Now, you make an argument for primary source and WP:OR.


 * Let's hear it -- you talk about primary source over 100 years later.


 * Let me ask you a question. Using simple logic alone, that gets exorcised from the article as a primary source?


 * Jones v. Temmer -- The judge upheld the MONOPOLY. Get it?  Dude.


 * NEW legislation had to be passed. Get it?  The governor had to get involved.


 * Do you get it, Dude? It's real simple, yet I have to explain it.  The judge is saying something about the 14th Amendment.  Get it, Dude?  The court didn't create the 14th Amendment.  They're the JUDICIARY.  Congress passed the 14th Amendment.


 * That's the ISSUE. So, what I'm gonna' do, is wait ten days, BE BOLD, and if I don't see anything intelligent being said, then I think Jones v. Temmer needs to be mentioned, as do THE SECONDARY SOURCES I added from JSTOR.


 * Then admins get it involved when you start arguing WP:OR and primary sources. That's very convenient, but it ain't gonna' work.


 * I love how people start WP:I DON'T THINK.


 * Back to 42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982 -- That does NOT say anything about citizens of the United States having the same POLITICAL RIGHTS as white citizens.


 * Get it, Dude? That's called Dred Scott v. Sandford never being overturned.


 * This article has a nice warm and fuzzy feel to it, as if the 14th Amendment is a completely settled matter, yet there's plenty of literature in law reviews, WHICH I QUOTED, that was removed.


 * And you're gonna' sit there and talk about original research and primary sources? IT WP:BOGGLES THE MIND.


 * Get it, dude?


 * What it comes to is, "I don't like it," so let me WP:TO DEATH in hopes it goes away. Get it, dude?


 * This is not WP:I'M NOT WELL READ, so if WP:I NEVER HEARD IT it's WP:BULLSH*T. Get it, dude?  Making it clear why nothing's helpful?


 * Oh, yeah, scroll to the top of page. See tab -- "DISCUSSION". Get it? -- Exxess (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, back to business before that completely irrelevant and paltry attempt to stifle discussion.


 * 42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982 -- "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."


 * 42 U.S.C. § 1982 bespeaks to property rights of citizens of the United States being on par with white citizens, NOT POLITICAL RIGHTS, hence the DISTINCTION being made.


 * This needs to be in the article. I really don't see any attempt at refutation prevailing.  Someone, someday will point this out, so it might as well make its way into the article now.


 * Here's a challenge for the man who was so bold to attempt to completely STIFLE ALL DISCUSSION.


 * 42 U.S.C. § 1982 bespeaks to property rights of citizens of the United States being on par with white citizens, NOT POLITICAL RIGHTS. Jones v. Temmer makes it perfectly clear the Fourteenth Amendment never incorporated any of the Bill of Rights, but only protects those rights peculiar to being a "citizen of the United States," or in the language of the court, "a citizen of the federal government," and the court goes on to say, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights  ..."


 * FIND anything in the law that asserts the POLITICAL RIGHTS of citizens of the United States are EQUAL to the POLITICAL RIGHTS of white citizens. -- Exxess (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause if not to provide equal rights, political as well as property? SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if my additions to the article weren't obliterated and attempts at discussion SMACKED DOWN, that line of inquiry might have yielded some fruit.


 * 42 U.S.C. § 1982 -- equality of PROPERTY RIGHTS, which I would even characterize as COMMERCIAL -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about POLITICAL RIGHTS.


 * Doesn't this qualify as a GLARING OMISSION from this article? -- Exxess (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, an admin just told me Wikipedia policy supports the deleting editors. I think the law review deletions to this article directly address that, but that's another debate. -- Exxess (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
Article lead: "This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights."

Strictly speaking, it incorporates NONE of the Bill of Rights. I question the accuracy and assertion of the lead of this article.


 * Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226, 1234-35 (D. Colo. 1993), stated:


 * "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."

Dred Scott v. Sandford -- That case says Dred Scott could not be a citizen of the United States under Article IV, Section 2.1, of the Constitution for the United States of America (1787), no XIV Amendment existing in Scott's time (1799 - 1858), so there's no reference to the term "citizen of the United States," as that term is used under the XIV Amendment.

Scott could acquire state Citizenship (distinguished from being a citizen of the federal government, a XIV Amendment citizen, not a "citizen of the United States" under Article XIV, Section 2.1.) Dred Scott v. Sandford makes that clear, given the time of the case. See Jones v. Temmer above to make sure your brain understands the distinction between being a citizen of the federal government (XIV Amendment), and being a state Citizen, state Citizenship existing prior to the XIV Amendment.

Now, to make that clear in this article, which is simple logic, something in regards to that cannot be posted until this gets the imprimatur of academia and the legal profession? What other conclusions could anyone come to with common sense?

And the train of thought behind that is rights granted under the XIV Amendment are technically "civil liberties" because their source is Congress, which means they are not unalienable, which is why 42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982, distinguishes "citizens of the United States" from "white citizens."


 * "No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution." -- Van Valkenberg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.

Nothing is implied there about the nature of the rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 being equal to the political rights of white citizens. White citizens WROTE the constitutions, state and federal, prior to the XIV Amendment. Their rights by necessity come from sources OTHER than the XIV Amendment, meaning the political nature of rights under the XIV Amendment are different.


 * Article -- "as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights." I question whether those rights are substantive.

Now, make an argument for WP:OR, but it's obvious on the surface of it. Waiting for academia to argue about it over coffee and greasy donuts in mutual admiration of each others' brilliance, then publish something about it when they get around to it is putting way too much faith in academia and the legal profession.

Glaring omissions in this article... Most of this article should be moved to a separate article entitled, "Racial Equality in the United States." I question how much is strictly about the XIV Amendment.

'Nuff said. Back to my greasy donuts. -- Exxess (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When are citations needed?
A link to a court case is not a citation supporting the text, if the text represents an explanation of the effect of a court case's effects (rather than merely quoting the judgement). Thus where the WP article says "Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent...", this cannot be cited to a case - it must be cited to a reliable source (law journal article, law textbook) that says that this is what those subsequent decisions have done. This is a common error in WP articles in the legal field. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

→ That's an interesting position. In law the case is considered to be the primary source. Legal journals carry some authority, but are generally only accepted as a persuasive, not an authoritative source. Legal textbooks carry no authority whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.49.84 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is almost the opposite at Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources and actively avoid primary sources in most circumstances: see WP:PRIMARY. There is no question that the case is the primary source: rather, it should not be relied upon for an encyclopedic explanation of what the case's effects are. There is no problem in using the case as a source for quoting the actual judgement: it should not be used as a source for any explanation of the judgement. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A source was just added for the sentence in question, but it looks like it has the incorrect date (2000 instead of 2001) and more importantly, the source doesn't mention Wong Kim Ark or Plyler. I removed the sentence again until the citation can be explained. Cmind123 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an on-line reference to what looks like the original reference: http://oakland.academia.edu/DominiqueDaniel/Papers/242835/Automatic_Birthright_Citizenship_Who_is_an_American Cmind123 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a better source --A 2009 law review ARTICLE. Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - can you tweak the ref so the title is included? Something 's wrong there. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * willdo. Rjensen (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This reference doesn’t make the point cited, that “Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent” where “the principle” refers to citizenship conferred by birth in this country. And the article doesn’t mention the Rios-Pineda case. Try again? Cmind123 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored the material, but then took out the cases used as examples. Now it doesn't matter what cases the source cites, as long as the source backs up the principle referenced in the material. SMP0328. (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Indians not Taxed"
Are native Americans who live in U.S reservations taxed ? Are they counted for the purpose of apportionment of seats in Congress under the 14th amendment ? I am also confused about the status of reservation lands. Are they considered federal territory or are they part of a particular state ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV: Citizenship and Civil Rights--Background
The last paragraph of this section, comprising a quote from the foreword to a Raoul Berger book, looks like soapboxing WP:SOAP. It seems, at best, out of place in the 'Background' section since it describes later interpretations by the Supreme Court, and only superficially relates to the background. If the paragraph included any indication of which provisions of the Amendment have been misinterpreted and how (e.g. the Citizenship Clause), it might be incorporated into that appropriate article. Since it seems like a general swipe at the Amendment which gives undue weight to the position that the Amendment should be interpreted much more narrowly than it has, I am inclined to just delete the whole paragraph. If this was premature, my apologies. Destijl78 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is when that material was added (subsequent tweaks were made). The material is clearly soapboxing and appears to me to simply be advocacy by an anon. The removal of that material was proper; good catch, Destij178. SMP0328. (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Raoul Berger
Material about this person's view that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted for a century has been added to the article here. If this material is appropriate, it should be balanced with material showing an opposing viewpoint. Also, the material is vague in that it doesn't say what interpretations of the amendment Raoul Berger believed were incorrect (he died in 2000). Rather than getting into an edit war with the anon who insist on this material, I want to get the views of other editors. What should be done with this material? SMP0328. (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would remove it per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTRS, and WP:UNDUE. It might possibly fit in a separate "Controversies" section treating both Raoul Berger's views (clearly identifying them as views) and other views from all sides. But as it now stands, this material is being given undue weight and is misrepresenting one side of a dispute as if it were settled truth. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the wording so that it's clear that those were Burger's view, not settled fact. I am leaning toward removing the material, because it is unclear where it belongs and I believe that it doesn't belong in the Background section. I would like to know the views of other editors. SMP0328. (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it does not belong in the background section. The article has a section on Supreme Court cases, however that section is divided into eight subsections. If Berger is to be included, then more specific information is needed than, to paraphrase, a simple "he doesn't agree with any 14th Amendment cases." Which of the eight types of cases does he disagree with and why? Perhaps the existing language can be moved to the end of the incorporation subsection. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added sourced material that explains the broader approach to the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court has adopted and with which Berger disagrees. Berger's opinion is in the clear minority -- see discussion at Birthright citizenship in the United States. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I have placed the Berger reference to come before that of Fosner, because Fosner's reasoning is the normal response to that of people like Berger. I again clarified that the Berger quote was of his opinion, not of a fact. SMP0328. (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you revert the change regarding the order of the quotes. The Foner quote represents the most widely held position that takes a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and as such, it should be the first mentioned. Berger is the one who is contesting the majority view and is in the rebuttal position.


 * There are a series of reviews of Berger's work that should probably be added that specifically reject Berger's historical analysis. The article currently reads as if Foner and Berger have equally popular interpretations and that does not appear to be the case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Berger quote comes last, it will appear that there has been no response to his belief. Now the Foner is shown as a rebuttal to what Berger said. As for your second point, I wholeheartedly agree. More historians like Foner should be added in order to show how small a minority Berger was in. Of course, I still wouldn't mind simply removing the Berger material for being soapboxing. SMP0328. (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As originally posted, Berger position was adequately explained. He believed that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted solely for the benefit of freedmen, although he recognized that some of the Radical Republicans were really concerned with consolidating their power. So he confronts that public rationale for the Amendment and the private political motivations behind the Amendment. Others have seen fit to delete that explanatory material. It belongs in the background section, because it explains the reasoning for the Amendment's enactment, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's latter decisions to the contrary. Berger's opinion is in the minority, but that does not make it wrong. Truth, like the Bill of Rights, is not determined by majoritarianism. Sadly, reason does not rule here. Three people may force their opinions on the world even when it is without factual support. Isn't Foner's statement a mere opinion? What evidence does he produce? Perhaps, you guy should ignore all so called, minority opinions on Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia should have a rule that states: "if it is not popular, we can't discuss it." That totalitarian approach would fit some quite well. 74.192.46.84 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough about the Foner quote merely being his opinion. Of course, his opinion has the backing of the Supreme Court, Constitutional scholars and the American People. Berger was entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to your's. However, the view held by Berger is a fringe opinion and so should not be treated as if it's a mainstream opinion. BTW, please show good faith toward other editors. I assume you have good intentions regarding your edits; please provide the same courtesy toward we who disagree with your edits. SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

SMP0328: You seem to me to be deserving of good faith. One editor has previously demonstrated that he is unworthy of that presumption. Past experience counts for something. To your point about fringe theories, Einstein's theory of relativity was once a fringe theory, it is now accepted as fact by many. Some people contend that anything other than the Warren Commission Report is a "fringe theory." Yet, a majority of the American people do not believe the Warren Commission Report according to various polls. What is a "fringe opinion" is a highly subjective determination. Most people would laugh at the notion that a U.C. Berkeley law professor, and later Harvard law professor, was a proponent of a fringe theory about constitutional law. I wholeheartedly agree that the entry should be balanced and I believe that has been achieved with the addition of Eric Foner. I am satisfied with the current version. Are you?74.192.46.84 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to review WP:UNDUE. As you yourself admit,Berger is a minority opinion.  Balance requires greater emphasis on the majority opinion -- treating Foner and Berger's opinions as equal presents a false picture to the reader. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost all Supreme Court decisions are dissented by a minority of Justices. Including dissenting opinion is akin to re-arguing the issue. The argument is over, and the majority opinion is law - which is the only relevant citation unless the article is ABOUT the opposing opinions. Shall all articles about settled law include minority opinion? Why? The point of an encyclopedic article is to cite fact as it exists, not to re-hash every disagreement and debate ever held that lead up to it. 67.168.201.40 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Minority opinion does have its place, as it often leads to refinements to a given case or even overturnings, such as the cases leading up to Brown v Board. It should be included; to write an article without inclusion of the minority opinions would be unencyclopedic. The more significant minority opinions should be treated equally to the majority opinions, but such opinions should also be verified as being significant opinions, whether by third party [law] sources or cases down the line which make use of them. That said, this seems to be something of a side point.
 * Toward the main argument, I would agree that his opinion is fringe. As SMP notes, his opinion is not the one held by the vast majority of citizens in the United States and should be treated as such. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

14th amendment as it applies to women
Hi, coming from WikiProject Women's History, I notice that the 14th amendment and related articles are written from the perspective of Civil Rights and that women are not mentioned at all. From a historical perspective it makes a big difference, especially because the protection of the 14th amendment was extended to African Americans in 1954 and to women in 1971. This continues to be a current event, when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims that women do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment because men's rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, but women's rights are not mentioned. I understand the need for neutrality, but I request that this article be expanded to include how the 14th amendment applies to women, since this issue has not been resolved in the court system. USchick (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Point in time reference
The second paragraph, second sentence of the "due process" section begins, "In the past forty years..."

Such point-in-time references should be re-written to cite specific date ranges, so that the reference does not become dated in ensuing decades.

Given the incivility in edit wars that dominate Wikipedia, I am not interested in doing even the simplest edit, but suggest that one of the parties invested in this article may want to change this. 67.168.201.40 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Change made. That sentence has been rewritten so that it starts with "By the 1960s". BTW, feel free to make constructive edits. Thousands of edits are made without any edit warring. SMP0328. (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Apportionment of Representatives vs new voting requirements
How will the 14th interact with the wave of new voting restrictions passed this year? Will poll monitors simply note the numbers of persons illegally restricted from voting and simply turn back Representatives when they show up in D.C.? Hcobb (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of Wikipedia to make such predictions. On a side note, if the laws violate the 14th Amendment, then they will be challenged in the courts and struck down. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You, Sir, are an optimist. Did Congress ever enforce Section 2, despite the specific grant of power to do so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as soon as anyone uses the phrase "radical republicans", we can be sure they're a little radical themselves.....or maybe they've been drinking..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.214.78 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Validity of Public Debt NPOV July 2011
I rolled back this edit because it's clearly vandalism. That said, I make no endorsement of the content added here. Given the relevance to current events, it is very important that WP:NPOV is maintained. Legal scholars are not united on this issue (see here for an argument against by a professor at Georgetown). Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If no one has any objection, I would like to add the following and remove the NPOV tag: Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even a "dire financial energy" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]". The issue of the 14th Amendement and the debt ceiling has been categorized as an unsettled question in the legal community. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that having just one person as a citation would be problematic no matter who he or she is. I do like the last line though since it seems to sum up the current situation well. "The issue of the 14th Amendement and the debt ceiling has been categorized as an unsettled question in the legal community." Although even that would probably need a reference of some sort. Sorry if this is not formatted correctly. Been years since I edited something. Cartras (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Overruled" in lead
"Overruled" is a poor choice (really an incorrect choice) of words to describe what the 14th Amendment did to Dred Scott. In standard usage it's judges and courts that overrule, not legislatures. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've many times read/heard "overruled" used when done by legislatures. For example, the Congress has "statutorily overruled" the Supreme Court many times. SMP0328. (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, you were reading or hearing folks use the word haphazardly. Check how often you actually see "overrule(d)" used to describe legislative action in formal writing, particularly as against its frequency in describing court actions. Why use more questionable language in describing the function of the 14th Amendment when less questionable language is readily available? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Technically, legislatures don't "overrule" the decisions made by a court about a particular law or laws; rather, they change the law upon which the particular court ruling was based. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we explain that "overruled" means "negate". SMP0328. (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't see your point here. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We could say "overruled (i.e., negated)" or "negated (i.e., overruled)". This would allow for the use of the word "overruled" while expressly putting that word in context. SMP0328. (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, why say "overruled" at all when the usage is questionable? There are all sorts of other ways to say that the 14th Amendment effectively mooted Dred Scott. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 14A did not moot Dred Scott, it overruled Dred Scott. That decision had said Blacks, not just slaves, could never be citizens. This meant that even after the 13A's adoption Blacks could still not be citizens. 14A, specifically its Citizenship Clause, overruled this part of Dred Scott. It is common to refer to 14A as having "overruled" Dred Scott (,, and ). The article should use that word, because that is the word that is commonly used to describe 14A's effect on what remained of Dred Scott following the Civil War. SMP0328. (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly texts that use "overruled" just as there are undoubtedly texts that use something else. The issue is best practice. None of the examples you give, after all, involve formal legal writing. Normally, we don't use "overrule" to describe legislative action but, rather, judicial action. To say that Brown v. Board (along with other desegregation decisions) overruled Plessy (though more commonly we would say "reversed" or "overturned") would be okay. To say that the 14th Amendment "overruled" Dred Scott is less acceptable in an encyclopedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should use common word usage, because Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. The commonly used words for when a Supreme Court decision is no longer good law, regardless of the reason, are "overruled" and "overturned". The Supreme Court usually says "overruled". The best practice is common usage, not formal legal writing. Wikipedia is not a law review article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, THE SUPREME COURT usually says overrule. You might take note of the first paragraph in the following Wikipedia article: List of overruled Supreme Court decisions. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that I mentioned this controversy just now in a note on the WikiProject Law talk page, inviting people there to come over here and help.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In English legal scholarship the phrase "overruled" is often used when Parliament passes legislation that changes law previously established by the courts. Whether this is "correct" usage or not I do not know, but it is certainly used by the best of academics. Francis Davey (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the request for comment on wikiproject law. Our Supreme Court used the term "overruled" to describe what the 14th Amendment did to the Dred Scott Decision in the case McDonald v. Chicago. I will provide a cite to the term for the lead. The quote from McDonald follows here:"After the war, a series of constitutional amendments were adopted to repair the Nation from the damage slavery had caused. [***116] The provision at issue here, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, significantly altered our system of government. The first sentence of that section provides that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State [**940] wherein they reside.' This unambiguously overruled this Court's contrary holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), that the Constitution did not recognize black Americans as citizens of the United States or their own State. (emphais added)" Gx872op (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the term "overruled", the SCOTUS citation notwithstanding. However, my beef is with a different part of that sentence. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are different from Acts of Congress in that they require not just Presidential signature but also ratification of 2/3 of the states. As such, it seems not quite right to say that "Congress" overruled Dred Scott but rather that the amendment overruled Dred Scott (per the words of the SCOTUS citation). By saying that the amendment overruled Dred Scott, we avoid focusing on Congress and also avoid having to get into the awkward locution required to indicate that it was Congress as ratified by the states that did the overruling. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Presidents have no formal role in the amendment process and three-fourths of the States need to ratify for a proposed amendment to be adopted. As for "overruling", I've clarified that sentence so that it now credits the amendment with the overruling. SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanx. and thanks for the refresher course on constitutional amendments... I shoulda known that --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proportional representation
Third parties in the 21st century have made section two of the amendment a central focus of federal litigation in attempting to deconstruct the plurality voting system for a favorable proportional representation system precedent by challenging the constitutionality of the Electoral College and apportionment of Congress. (See: "Green civil action challenges the legitimacy of US Representatives from southern states")

Wheres Dan (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, but it's not sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article at the present time (per WP:UNDUE, and possibly even WP:FRINGE).  Rich wales (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It also looks like this isn't "third parties," but rather "a third party." It is something worth following, but at this time it isn't a major element. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Due Process/Due Process Clause
Under the Due Process Clause section, the in-text link for "Due Process Clause" is piped to "Due process", which is a mistake, as currently "Due process" is a non-US specific article, as opposed to "Due Process Clause. I'd fix it myself, but the article is semi-protected. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Interpretive branch
What is the branch of the government that interprets and applies the law as well as settling disputes is called what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.148.50 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The judicial branch. SMP0328. (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Relinquishing Federal citizenship without relinquishing state citizenship?
Has anyone ever heard of Federal legal case which addresses the question about whether a person may repudiate his "United States" (federal) citizenship without relinquishing his American state citizenship? The 14th Amendment seems to grant both to a person born within the "United States" two kinds of citizenship, federal and state, and it's a long-standing position that a person may repudiate citizenship,. (War of 1812, for instance, was fought over this very issue.) Jamesdbell8 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a great question - I don't know the answer but I'd like a legal expert's input. Bgates3 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find no case addressing such a situation. It's an interesting question, but there would be no point. A person who repudiated federal citizenship but continued to seek the benefits and protections of the United States by living claiming citizenship in a state would still be required to conform to all the same requirements as citizens (paying taxes, obeying laws, etc.). bd2412  T 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't he be exempt from paying federal taxes while required to pay state taxes? Bgates3 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," without any restriction based on citizenship or residency. Every person who earns income in the United States, and receives the benefits of a federal government (the military defending the country from aggressors, the national road system, food safety laws, etc.) is legally obligated to pay income taxes, even if they are not a U.S. citizen at all. Even foreign nationals who are in the United States illegally are required to pay federal income taxes. Furthermore, a resident alien (someone who legally resides in the United States, but is not a citizen of the United States) is required to pay taxes on all income earned worldwide. See The Deloitte & Touche guide to Taxation of Foreign Nationals by the United States. Thus, if a Mongolian sheepherder becomes a resident alien in the United States (but not a U.S. citizen), and then goes back to Mongolia to herd sheep for a month and gets paid a thousand dollars by some Mongolian rancher to do this, because the sheepherder is a resident alien of the United States he must pay income tax even on the thousand dollars paid to him in Mongolia, by another Mongolian, for work done in Mongolia. For non-resident aliens (which includes illegal immigrants), federal income tax must be paid for all income earned in the United States. bd2412  T 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporate personhood
I reverted a reference to the Equal Protection Clause being the source of corporate personhood, because many areas of law (common law, statutory, and Constitutional) are cited as a source for corporate personhood. Interestingly, the article does not have a section or subsection discussing corporate personhood. This omission should be corrected. SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Change "black people" in the second sentence to "people of African descent" (same wording used in the Dred Scott v Sanford article)
Second sentence:


 * Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.[1]

The expression "black people" is colloquial and sounds awkward and informal here. I think "people of African descent" (same wording used in the Dred Scott v Sanford article) sounds better. The term "African American" could also work. ThinkingStiff (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support changing the wording, using language from Dred Scott in quotation marks to indicate it as such. The wording throughout the majority ruling is "negro(es) of African descent". groupuscule (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I second ThinkingStiff. "People of African descent" sounds much better. Will change if there are no objections. Is it Protagoras? (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now you are worried about colloquial phrasing. Which includes political correctness.Tgm1024 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Citizens United and corporate personhood
What justification is there that Citizens United was a case about corporate personhood? As far as I know, corporate personhood was *not* a significant issue in that case. It is mentioned only once in the article on Citizens United, and then only in a section about the *response* to the decision. I suggest removing it from the list of cases relating to corporate personhood. The court case itself was a type of First Amendment case and made no significant changes to the doctrine of corporate personhood - it was only in the ensuing media reaction that the corporate personhood issue was raised, and that is, I think, largely because people are unfamiliar with the concept of legal fiction. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court upheld campaign finance restrictions based on "corporate wealth". In Citizen United, the challenged federal provision was defended in part on Citizens United's corporate nature. The Court in Citizens United decided to overrule Austin. So Citizens United is about, among other things, corporate personhood. SMP0328. (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Corporate personhood is not mentioned in the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce article either. In the article on corporate personhood, it *explicitly* mentions that the decisions make no reference to the 14th amendment or corporate personhood. Just because something involves corporations doesn't mean it's about corporate personhood. 0x0077BE (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

John Bingham committee report
I revised the "Incorporation" section a bit, both to give it a more logical order and to remove a bit about John Bingham section that had a problematic source. 

Here's the removed text:
 * On January 30, 1871, the House Judiciary Committee, led by John Bingham, released a House Report No. 22, authored by Bingham, and interpreted that the provisions of Privileges or Immunities Clause does not include the first eight provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights, but rather only the provisions in the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The report stated in part that "It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States".

I'm uncomfortable with the source here--a blog that describes itself as being "in development stages". I also think that for this text to be re-added, a reliable source should be added that can make a clearer connection/assertion of importance here. Does that make sense to others? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a side note, if something like this is re-added, I think it could be made clearer to the reader the distinction between the P or IC and the P and IC. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed text from this blog from several more sections. I do think that our article needs some discussion of Bingham, but I'd suggest that it come from sources like this one or this. I'll try to add some of this tonight or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

samefacts.com
Reviewing the sources here further, http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/politics-and-leadership/the-debt-ceiling-and-the-14th-amendment-everybody-wins/ seems unlikely to be a reliable source. I'll try to replace this with discussion about the debt ceiling from reliable sources tonight or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've condensed this section a bit to remove the samefacts.com material. I think the discussion actually is still clear without it, but let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

U.S. v. United States
Re this reversion, the MOS specifically allows acronyms (including U.S.) at WP:ABBR; it seems to create unnecessary clutter to write it out on each of a hundred uses. Not a big deal, I suppose, but I wanted to explain the logic for why I changed those in the first place. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the MOS allows "U.S.", but (at least in this article) "United States" sounds and looks better (IMO at least). SMP0328. (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. And speaking more broadly, thanks for looking over my shoulder as I work on this one. I'm probably going to lay off it for the next 2 days or so to let the dust settle a bit from what I've revised so far, then come back to expand the history section a bit and the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Push for GA status
I'm hoping over the next month or two to bring this article up to GA status. On first glance, it seems to me that the article is probably close to GA quality already, but I'll do a bit of research to see if there are any major aspects that still need expansion or inclusion. If anybody's active here and would be interested in collaborating, your help would be very welcome! More to follow in the coming weeks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. First thoughts:
 * Maybe there should be a section on the "State Action Doctrine", the legal doctrine (in effect, I gather) maintaining that the 14th Amendment affects only state actors and not de facto realities. I think several the "Powers of Enforcement" cases relate to this issue.
 * This might be a overly ambitious, but... there's something a little weird to me about having these lists of cases, sorted by sub-topic, without explanations of how they fit into the development of 14th Amendment law over time. Ideally, I think they would be wikilinked into stories about the past and present interpretations of the text.
 * Fourteenth Amendment in the news: apparently there is a serious narrative about possibly overturning the Citizenship Clause in order to prevent immigrant babies from becoming citizens.
 * I guess "validity of public debt" became a huge issue, too... I wonder if there should be a spinoff page for that.
 * Coverage of the amendment's history of passage is a little spotty. I might look into that soon.
 * I guess corporate personhood needs more discussion.
 * OK cool thanks for working on this. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, they make a lot of sense. I agree in particular that the history of the amendment's passage could use some work. The weight issues are more difficult for me to judge at this point--I'm hoping to start with a few "Encyclopedia of the Constitution" type sources in the next week or two to give me a sense of what other tertiary sources summarize about the amendment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm largely done with my work on the Thirteenth Amendment and am ready to work on this in a more serious way. Let me know if you have any objections to the above; I'll continue work on this tomorrow. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at your points above in more detail, Groupuscule, I think the top priority is to work on the historical context. I'd propose reorganizing this article a bit so that the text section is followed by sections titled "Proposal" and "Ratification". The Proposal section could then include a subsection on historical background. Some of this material can be taken from the sections on individual clauses, but I'd also like to add some brief, basic background here for non-Americans, such as the fact that the Civil War had just ended, that this was the Reconstruction Era, Congress was clashing with Johnson, etc. I think it also makes more chronological sense to put Ratification before the many decades of court decisions that follow.
 * Validity of public debt seems like it has as much weight as needed at the moment, but I agree that a spin-off article wouldn't be unreasonable if someone wanted to expand.
 * Republican discussion of modifying the amendment in 2010-12 to prevent birth citizenship may be worth a sentence or two, but I wouldn't want to go into much detail about it, since nothing seems to have come of it. I'm wary of tilting the article too much to contemporary concerns
 * As for corporate personhood, you're right that that seems significant enough for a paragraph or so.
 * To add one more point of my own, I'd like to expand slightly the section "Power of enforcement"; the discussion there seems very vague, unsatisfactory, and reliant on primary sources.
 * Speaking broadly, I'd like to move this article away from direct reliance on and interpretation of court decisions; plenty of secondary sources exist on this topic, so we should rely on them to note what decisions, and what parts of decisions, are the most significant.
 * Agreement all the way down, I like how you're thinking. May shortly draft a history section along those lines. We might consider four sections: Background, Proposal (or Debate or something like that), Ratification, Implementation. The bare bones of a "Ratification" section already exist but need additional description. There are so many different narratives of the 14th Amendment, it will be important to consult many sources and paint as complete a picture as possible. I would love to find some guidance from contemporaneous Black intellectuals like Frederick Douglass & Harriet Tubman (or subsequent people such as W. E. B. DuBois and others). I am also finding that intersection with the women's rights movement was a big deal and something that needs to be addressed directly. The voting rights given in Section 2 also need to be explored: did this section sorta give Black men the right to vote?? groupuscule (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your four-part history outline sounds good to me. I can start filling in some of the other sections if you're interested in taking the first pass at that; otherwise, I can get to it later this week.
 * And yes, Reed v. Reed seems like it potentially needs a paragraph all to itself. That's in the lead, but for some reason not in the body. When we're done with all this, the lead probably needs some rewriting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cut a long block quotation from Thurgood Marshall on the purpose of Section 2 of the Amendment here--is that okay with you? It's interesting, but since the clause was never enforced, it feels a bit academic; I'd rather use that space for something like Reed v. Reed that had a wide impact. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm at the end of my day's work, I think. Here's what I've done:
 * 1) tried to standardize citations by giving case numbers for all decisions (not quite done with this yet, but getting close)
 * 2) added Reed v. Reed
 * 3) added Bush v. Gore
 * 4) added some more secondary sourcing generally for discussion of impact of cases
 * 5) expanded discussion under "Power of enforcement"; removed awkward one-sentence block quotation
 * Things I'd still like to do:
 * 1) Redesign structure to foreground historical background
 * 2) Add more historical background (particularly passage through Congress)
 * 3) Add a few sentences on corporate personhood
 * 4) Finish adding case citations for each Court decision
 * 5) Revise lead to better match/summarize article
 * 6) Figure out a better approach to link the Due Process Clause/Incorporation than the slightly awkward "see below". (Could these sections simply be combined, with the latter becoming a subsection of the former?)
 * I think this one's made a lot of progress today; I'll be excited to see how much more we can do tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completed #6 above, including removing the "awkward" cross reference. The Due Process Clause has always been the only provision used to incorporate the Bill of Rights (see McDonald v. Chicago as the most recent example). SMP0328. (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Khazar, you're doing great work here. I'm still keen on researching the history section, but unfortunately another issue has become very time consuming—and I'm sharing this computer. I don't expect to post anything major in the next 24h. So if you want to insert a history section I would be very happy to follow up and embellish with more research in the following days. Sorry for the weak follow-thru, amig@. groupuscule (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. Just to clarify, I would also be happy to initiate the history section... I'm not demanding that you do it... I just see that you're hot on the trail and I don't want to slow you up. Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, and I appreciate the update. I'm happy to take point on that and let you expand/revise later. I'm going to let the dust settle from what I've done so far for 48 hours or so, and then on Saturday take on that restructuring. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Further suggestions
This clause is referenced in the article, now expressly in the Introduction, but it does not have its own subsection in the Citizenship and civil rights section. Should such a subsection be created? If so, to what extent should material regarding the PIC be moved into that subsection? SMP0328. (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the coverage of it in the "incorporation" section seems sufficient, but I'll defer to your take if you think otherwise. If it makes a difference, I do think the lead still needs to be rewritten, and this draft has made things a bit worse rather than better; WP:LEAD limits leads to four paragraphs, whereas this is now at six, most of which are just a sentence or two. This should be rewritten both for flow and to better summarize the article (right now, the lead doesn't really mention historical context, among other issues). I'd also like to restore the mention of Reed v. Reed deleted without explanation, while noting a few other significant cases regarding the amendment: maybe Plessy v. Ferguson, Gideon v. Wainwright, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, Bush v. Gore. (The middle three still need discussion in the article as well, come to think of it.) I don't intend the lead to become a long list of case law, but it seems like more than Brown v. Board only should be mentioned.
 * What do you think? - Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Introduction should be expanded, while also being more compact. My thought regarding the PIC is that it is a 14A clause. Perhaps we could take the part of the incorporation material referring to the PIC and make it the first paragraph of a PIC subsection, with a second paragraph discussing Saenz v. Roe (1999). As an aside, any reference to Reed v. Reed should include Craig v. Boren. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those suggestions sound reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, Gideon is a Sixth Amendment case and Miranda deals with the Self-incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment; neither is a 14A case Miranda is not a 14A case. SMP0328. (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have both listed as 14A cases in the list at the bottom of the article. The second sentence of our Gideon article reads: "In it the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys, extending the identical requirement imposed on federal courts under the Sixth Amendment"; the infobox for Miranda lists 5A and 14A as the relevant amendments. I understand that the 14A is a part of these cases as a due process/incorporation issue, but it is still a part of these cases, right? I don't mind leaving them out of the lead if you think the 14A doesn't play enough of a role, but given the stature of these cases, I think I'd at least like to give them passing mentions (say, a sentence each) in the article body. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should take a look at those lists. Not every case dealing with the Bill of Rights becomes a 14A case just because of incorporation. For a Bill of Rights case to be a 14A case, there should be a 14A issue other than incorporation. Otherwise, almost every Bill of Rights decision from the past hundred years will have to be listed in this article. As for Gideon, I forgot that it incorporated the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the 6A; it does belong in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly defer to your judgement on anything you'd like to remove from that list; I don't know enough about some of these cases to sort it out with more research. I'm actually not sure that list belongs in the article at all, to be honest. It seems like cases important enough to be listed should be important enough to get a sentence or phrase of text in the article; if they don't rise to that importance, I don't know that they're worth listing. I don't know that it's a high revision priority compared to some other issues here, but I thought I'd put that out there.
 * As for Miranda, let me look at a better source or two than Wikipedia when working on this in more detail tomorrow, but what you're saying makes sense and I assume I'll end up agreeing with you. I certainly wouldn't object if you remove it for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I removed Reed v. Reed from the lead, but not from the body of the article. In the edit summary, I explained that it would be good to generalize a bit. Therefore, I replaced Reed v. Reed in the lead with this more general phrase: "other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups." There are many 14th Amendment cases that are more well-known than Reed v. Reed, and so it doesn't seem suitable for the lead, especially since there is so much else to cover in the lead. I've also removed the last paragraph of the lead, which mostly covered stuff that is now obsolete, so the lead is now four paragraphs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This article's undergoing a bit of an overhaul right now, so honestly it's hard for me to judge what should get what weight in the lead. Since this is a major topic, ideally I'd like to expand several points in the article--background history, some other landmark cases, etc.--bringing it to around 35-40kb readable prose (right now it's at 25 or so). For example, the role of the 14th amendment in Roe v. Wade surely deserves a paragraph in here. I know Groupuscule has some material she/he wants to add, too. I'll hold off on working on the lead myself until the body seems close to done and maybe then we can discuss further. Thanks for your work on this one and those revisions to the lead--I'm glad we've got so many heads to put together on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've updated the lead a bit to mention historical context, as well as to try to give a sense of the range of applications of the amendment. I think I've worked in a few examples without making this overdetailed, but let me know what you think. Thanks all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like what you added, with one exception. I've restored the structure of the material regarding Section 1's clauses. Having each clause's material separated from the other clauses' material makes each clause's description easier to find. SMP0328. (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The problem with the paragraphing is that the MOS specifically limits the lead to four paragraphs in WP:LEAD, as well as discouraging single-sentence paragraphs in WP:LAYOUT. On a Wikipedia level, it won't be able to pass GA in this form, but in purely practical terms I think it also disrupts the flow a bit to give each sentence its own paragraph. Is there any way we can rewrite this in more coherent paragraphs? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We could bullet point the material about the clauses. That would make that material one paragraph. SMP0328. (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't know that I've ever seen a bullet-pointed list in an article's lead on Wikipedia, and to my mind it raises the same flow/WP:LAYOUT issues as a series of single-sentence paragraphs. I feel like it's best just to describe the article's subject in prose as we would in any other article's lead, but I'm flexible about what that prose should look like. Alternatively, we might ask at WT:MOS, WT:EMBED, or WT:LEAD if anyone knows of a good model for the list-like approach you're looking for. While I prefer prose paragraphs myself, ultimately I don't mind another approach as long as we can find something MOS-compliant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS does not require that the Introduction be no more than four paragraphs; it is simply a "general guideline". The Introduction's length is based on the article's length. So I believe this article's Introduction is already MOS-compliant. SMP0328. (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, WP:LAYOUT also discourages single-sentence paragraphs. While I know Wikipedia has IAR, I'm not sure I see a compelling reason here not to combine sentences into paragraphs as we do in other articles--I feel like the four-paragraph structure that Anythingyouwant and I seemed to agree on earlier in this thread is a reasonable one.
 * Tell you what, let me just get a quick opinion from some experts at the MOS talk page; they'll have more experience with this than you and I. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have condensed the Introduction to four paragraphs. I did this in a way as to emphasize the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, the most litigated parts of the Fourteenth Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. But, I will shorten it a bit more.  Mentioning cases like Brown and Roe is fine, but I think there's an undue weight problem with Reed and Craig.  Brown v. Board 126,000,000 hits on Google.  Roe v. Wade 6.5 million hits on Google.  Craig v. Boren 41,000 hits on Google.  Reed v. Reed 519,000 on Google.  It's plenty adequate to mention the latter cases in the body of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SMP. And I find your logic persuasive, Anythingyouwant. Thanks for checking on that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)