Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 3

Adoption section
As planned, I've followed the model of the Thirteenth Amendment article and created an "Adoption" section, with Proposal by Congress and Ratification as subsections. I think adding a history section gives the amendment somewhat more context. Since issues of intent are somewhat confused by the legislative horse-trading and log-rolling required for passage, I've left much of that discussion in the sections on individual clauses. Does that make sense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always smart to have a section about drafting and adoption before getting into the post-ratification stuff, so, yes, that makes sense. However, the list of ratifications will scare away anyone who's still reading, so I recommend removing that to a footnote, or to separate list, or to anywhere other than where it is now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving that list of dates to an explanatory footnote seems like a really good idea; I agree that it seriously disrupts the text, and few readers will want to read that list from top to bottom. Unless you beat me to it, I'll try to play with that format later this morning and see what it ends up looking like. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Affirmative action
The Equal Protection Clause section makes no reference to affirmative action. This is a gaping hole in the article that should be filled ASAP. The Supreme Court has made many major decisions on this subject (e.g., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)). All of these decisions, and others, deal with affirmative action in the context of public education. SMP0328. (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. I'll add 1-2 paragraphs in the next day or two if you don't beat me to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the first three. Will add Fisher if I have time before my daughter wakes up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job. I added Fisher. I also added Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, which involved the use of race in countering de facto segregation in public schools. Finally, I moved the affirmative action material one paragraph up so that it is with the material dealing with the Equal Protection Clause and race. SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Revising
I've done some revising through to the start of the subsection on due process. I'll try to keep going ASAP, but have some other stuff to do right now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me so far. Thanks for the revisions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As usual (for me), I went back and made a few more tweaks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorporation and PDP
Concerning the "Selected Supreme Court cases" section, I am wondering what the reasoning is behind listing the "Incorporation" cases in the "Procedural Due Process" section. Typically, "Incorporation" is a concept more closely related to substantive due process, although ideally it should be listed separately from both, since it's a distinct concept. Also, from the looks of it, no leading cases directly relating to the concept of Procedural Due Process itself, like Mathews v. Eldridge, are included in this subsection at all; it appears to entirely consist of Incorporation cases. I propose simply removing the label "Procedural Due Process" from this subsection (keeping "Incorporation") and then constructing a new "Procedural Due Process" subsection. I'm not an expert in PDP, but I should think that the subsection should include cases relating to both "Liberty interests" and "Property interests" (with the latter topic at least including Mathews v. Eldridge, Goldberg v. Kelly, and Board of Regents v. Roth). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As Justice Thomas showed in McDonald v. Chicago, incorporation can be done via the Privileges or Iimmunities Clause instead of via the Due Process Clause, so I support having incorporation not be a subset of either PDP or SDP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should feel free to re-structure as seems best. This is one section we haven't really revisited in the latest revisions, so I'm not sure who we're inheriting it from. Thanks for taking a look at it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to further note, Justice Thomas's concurrence in McDonald was not the controlling opinion, and the long line of cases holding that Incorporation occurs under the Due Process Clause and not the P+I Clause remains controlling law. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done a bit of restructuring on this topic. I'll work more on putting some procedural due process material and cases in the article in the coming weeks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to section on Validity of public debt
Change Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to read as follows, based on the addition of one quote and two citations of a new CNN reference (  ):


 * Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all U.S. public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.  In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power." 


 * The debt-ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013 raised again the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President. 


 * Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security recipients).  Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.  Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]".  Jack Balkin, the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale University, argues that while "Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment's provisions[, t]his does not mean, however, that these provisions do not apply to the president; otherwise, he could violate the 14th Amendment at will."  According to Balkin, "Section 4 requires the president not to put the validity of the public debt into question", requiring the President to "prioritize incoming revenues to pay the public debt: interest on government bonds and any other 'vested' obligations. What falls into the latter category is not entirely clear, but a large number of other government obligations&mdash;and certainly payments for future services&mdash;would not count and would have to be sacrificed. This might include, for example, Social Security payments."  

Thanks in advance. 72.244.206.70 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. One clarification: note also that introductory context was changed as above, to reference both crises:
 * "The debt-ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013 raised again the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President."

72.244.206.70 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It helps if you focus on the change rather than including the current text in your result. Since most of the sources predate the current events, I'm not comfortable with including the debt-ceiling crisis of 2013 that way. In fact, for an article on the 14th amendment, it seems like the current text borders on WP:UNDUE and expanding it to include a recent opinion piece crosses that border. Also, your change removing "an issue which remains unsettled" takes a marginally WP:NPOV summary of the source and makes it solidly POV. That source has a balanced tone and includes points like: "The Supreme Court has said in passing that those words have outlived the historical moment that gave rise to them." and says as much about what might happen to the president if he were to take unilateral action as it does about how that action might be justified. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Application to private parties
The article says the fourteenth amendment applies to the actions of state and local officials, but not to those of private parties. This is clearly untrue, for the very first sentence of the amendment declares that persons born in and subject to the laws of the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. and the state where they were born. Birthing is a process beyond the competence of state and local officials. Unless we're speaking of their children, in which case they'd be acting outside of their official capacity.

The fourteenth amendment's citizenship clauses apply to the actions of private parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.16.206 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Application of fourteenth amendment's citizenship clause to the actions of private parties included with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * P3Y229, your opinion is intriguing, but you would need a reliable source to back it up. See WP:RS.  Incidentally, I am slightly rephrasing the sentence in question, to say that the Amendment "limits" (instead of "applies to") only state and local governments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Anything's change is a good one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is splitting hairs; of course the government has no control over the birthing process, but it is the government that must recognize people as citizens, and the 14 Amendment limits government discretion in doing so. If need be, I'll dig up sources stating that the 13th Amendment is the only amendment that applies to private parties. But unless anything changes, I think Anythingyouwant's edit is fine. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * After informing myself with respect limitations of the 14th amendment on actions by private parties and agreeing with Prototime comment I added State Action/State Actor doctrine section and in light of this section changed the lead. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship
I removed some recently-added material in the section on the Citizenship Clause. This section seems to be about citizenship rather than equal protection or due process, so the latter stuff is out of place. Also, regarding children of non-citizens, the subsection 'Children born to citizens of other countries' already covers that subject. And, Plyler said children of 'illegal immigrants', are 'persons' not citizens, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been re-added: "The Fourteeth Amendment was adopted to put citizenship above the preferences and prejudices of any politician or era." Footnoted source: "The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment", National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO).  This sentence would be fine but for a couple problems.  First, the cited source says: "The 14 Amendment was adopted ... to put citizenship above the preferences and prejudices of any politician or era...."  So, it's a copyvio, being verbatim what the source says without quotation marks.  See WP:Copyvio.  Another problem is that the cited source does not comply with WP:RS; it's a statement by an interest group, also including stuff like "The attacks on the 14th Amendment being mounted today are not new…."  Of course, I have nothing against NALEO; this would no less inappropriate if it came from the National Association Against Immigration (or somesuch).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted problematic sentence and added instead material from Civil Rights Act of 1866 page. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" subsection
With this edit by GregJackP the newly created subsection Meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" was deleted to discuss this addition and to "Take it to talk if you think it should be re-added to the article." The material was transfered from the equal protection clause (EPC)in light of this background. I would like to add this material at this page because I think it's noteworthy how the U.S. has interpreted the terms "person" and "within its jurisdiction" from the EPC. I thought transfering it from the EPC site to the 14th Amendment page would solve the chronological style problem at the EPC site. But instead it created a new problem. I'n don't know how and where to include my material. Any suggestions ato accomplish this are deeply appreciated. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Discouraging their disenfranchisement"
Is this double negative incorrect? Republicans would want disenfranchisement of the free-slave population, right? So they wouldn't want to discourage it? Or am I parsing this wrong? Will change in a while unless someone says not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.185 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to this part of the article. The Radical Republicans wanted to extend voting rights to the recently freed slaves and to blacks generally, so they were "discouraging their disenfranchisement." SMP0328. (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014
This page is semi-protected so anonymous folks like myself cannot edit it. I think some thought should be put into the sidebar next to each of the constitutional amendments. It would be convenient for the sidebar to identify the date on which the amendment was ratified. It may also be convenient to know the date it was submitted to congress, the date it was passed by congress, and the number of votes that were cast for and against.

98.240.140.117 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Specifics

I would like the sidebar for this article to have a heading for the 14th amendment. Under that heading I would like to see:

Approved by Senate: June 8, 1866 Yes votes: 33 No votes: 11 Approved by House: June 13, 1866 Yes votes: 138 No votes: 36 Ratified: July 9, 1868 Time to ratify: 757 days (2 years, 26 days)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is a pretty substantial change to institute and, if implemented, should be done uniformly across all Constitutional Amendment articles, so I wouldn't be comfortable doing this without a broader consensus first. Personally, I think this is a level of detail not really needed at an infobox level when the information is contained within the article, but I'll leave this request open for a bit to see if any editor disagrees with me. (In addition, the current sidebar is just a uniform template that is identical across all of the articles, not a customizable infobox like you would see in a biographical or geographical article, so there would probably need to be some template work done as well, which I am definitely not qualified for.) -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Section 2 and disenfranchisement
The text formerly stated that section 2 to 4 seldom or never were bases for litigation. I've just done a little work with the felony disenfranchisement situation in the US; and it seems to me as if the exceptions in section 2 are considered as providing the main constitutional ground for this. (I refer to ..., except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,...; so does the Supreme Court opinion in Hunter v. Underwood, and they do it as if indeed this is the constitutional ground for the exceptions.) There has been a few Supreme Court decisions through the years about disenfranchisement; and I suppose that section 2 is involved in more of them.

This has some importance, since at least in Hunter v. Underwood, the cause for disenfranchisement in the test cases was misdemeanour, not felony; and the state authorities referred to their right to disenfranchise people convicted for "crimes", and claimed state authority over which crimes to consider.

I therefore modified the text a little, mentioning disenfranchisement. JoergenB (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I now also have glanced at Richardson v. Ramirez. The plaintiffs invoke the first section, but the Supreme Court majority opinion claims that the exceptions in the second section are equally valid - for felony. JoergenB (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014
remove dangler "entitled to." = "entitled."66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which one? There are 7 instances of "entitled to" in the article. Stickee (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You must be confused. It is all in the details. There is only one instance of " e n t i t l e d t o . "66.74.176.59 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do a word search, there are seven (though one is in the references) --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Haste makes waste. Are you forgetting the "period" following? (" e n t i t l e d t o . ") Unless it has been changed since yesterday, there is only one.66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015
The section of this article regarding citizenship of children born in the United States, whose parents are not citizens is written from a politically charged perspective. The author delegitimizes the clear and longstanding amendment language which grants citizenship to all people born in the United States. The political viewpoint projected within the current language of the article asserts that the enforcement of this clause of the 14th Amendment is somehow in dispute, when it is not. This political wording is almost certainly written from an individual who holds strong opinions regarding the immigration of Mexican citizens into the United States, and the author likely disagrees with the protections granted by the 14th Amendment and therefore is writing in such a way as to weaken its scope.

Brendonsteen (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Change capitalization
Someone needs to change the capitalization of the word 'State' to the lowercase (state) in the text of the amendment.

So from :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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

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

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

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

To:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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

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

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

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.87.72 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, they are capitalized in the actual document, so we should not change it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Obergefell v. Hodges
Based on this decision should we include a new section or should we simply add material to the Due Process and Equal Protection sections? SMP0328. (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it's more of a substantive due process decision as it employed none of the tiers of review one finds in EP cases. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It does refer to the "fundamental right to marry" throughout the opinion, but it bases that on both clauses. I don't think we could justify referring only to the substantive due process material. SMP0328. (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems more that he used the same rationale as Lawrence, and then slapped on EP for good measure without really explaining why it was necessary. Even if it relies on both, the SDP rationale is doing all the heavy lift work. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ I'm hearing WP:SYNTH here. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange. I'd expect you'd be seeing it, not hearing it. Unless you work for the NSA and are listening in, or are just talking to yourself... :p :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't confirm whether I work for the NSA. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But, synth you brought it up... :p "It's notable that the due process analysis predominated and drove the equal protection analysis." -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like a WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) She's a law professor. Go check her About Me.
 * (b) I wasn't aware that I needed a reliable source to make a point on a talk page. You presume too much in that I was offering it as a source cite for the article when I merely offered it as a source to demonstrate that capable authorities have reached conclusions similar to my own, and that we can likely expect more to do so. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can use this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another blog, though it might be reliable. The about page does not indicate whether they are fact checking each other, whether each article is that own authors POV, etc. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is a reliable source. Blogs are not per se unreliable. Wikipolicy calls them "questionable". SCOTUSblog is cited in many articles in and out of Wikipedia. The external link I have provided is to an article that is a description of the decision. It is not an opinion article. It should be considered as reliable as would an article from the news media. SMP0328. (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy in that case is the following quotation: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. I'm simply exercising caution since I don't know whether their expert work has been republished. ;) --Izno (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did check the about page, which fails one of the requirements for RS (in that she isn't fact checked given that it's her blog, though I'm sure she's authoritative on the subject).
 * I was sure opinion about the critical elements of the opinion are published, but when someone is grabbing examples it is easier now to point out sourceability. It might have been the case you did mean that to be used, so I explicitly wanted to deny that particular source as acceptable. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is "she"? SCOTUSblog is not owned by a woman and the article was written by a man. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review the indentations--this response regards the Althouse blog article. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to the original question, I think it's best that it be mentioned in both the Due Process Clause section and the Equal Protection Clause section. No need to be repetitive, but the reasoning under each clause can be discussed under each section. That's likely how we'd handle it if there were a case that held something was unconstitutional under two parts of the constitution that had their own separate Wikipedia articles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the wording of the first paragraph to put Obergefell v. Hodges alongside Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore as one of the landmark cases for which the Fourteenth Amendment formed the basis, rather than mentioning Obergefell v. Hodges separately from those other cases. The first paragraph currently ends with the following sentences:
 * ... The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the amendment was used to strike down same-sex marriage bans throughout the United States.

I suggest the following:
 * ... The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion; Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election; and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

-- Mmorearty (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added material to the Substantive due process subsection explaining this ruling. SMP0328. (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

First override of a Presidential veto
The article is currently claiming that Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first in American history that Congress was able to override and even provides a citation for this, but John Tyler and Franklin Pierce also had vetoes overridden. Perhaps whoever made the edit rather meant to say that it was the first of Johnson's vetoes to be overridden. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I have removed that sentence. The citation establishes that Johnson's veto was overridden and so it remains in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, excludes aliens!!
Jacob Howard argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

This phrase is in  the fourteenth  amendment  and excludes  aliens !!

This should  be  included  in  the  Wikipedia article  here,  as  it  already  is  here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.234.214 (talk)


 * First, the phrase is not in the Fourteenth Amendment in the manner that you are claiming. It goes to who is a citizen, not who has rights. Nothing excludes aliens. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations. By requiring potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both senator Howard and Senator Trumbull, authors of the 14th Amendment, were lawyers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3766:A740:5D93:88A7:7E17:624F (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Privileges or Immunities Clause
The Lead states; The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little. What does that mean? Is this a sentence that should have been discarded by some previous edit? It seems out-of-place and dubious. Comments? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to the Slaughter-House Cases that basically gutted the P or I Clause. SMP0328. (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111106032355/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/born_in_the_usa.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/born_in_the_usa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110323115737/http://www.salon.com:80/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416013437/http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html to http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130606051307/http://www.justice.gov:80/olc/expatriation.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019233856/http://www.saf.org:80/LawReviews/Amar1.html to http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019004128/http://hnn.us:80/blogs/archives/52/2006/10/ to http://hnn.us/blogs/archives/52/2006/10/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong date
Ratification by the states. Kentucky – March 30, 1976 (after rejection – January 8, 1867). I presume that should March 30, 1876. --Gepid (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Date is correct. Kentucky ratified the amendment in 1976. SMP0328. (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the article
The wording of this article is misleading.

The third sentence says:

"The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress."

The particularly opposed group would not have been the Southern states, the particularly opposed group would have been the Democrats. The Democrats voted in 100% opposition to the 14th amendment. Even after the 14th amendment the democrats created Jim Crow laws further suppressing blacks in violation of the 14th amendment.

The wording of the entire article only mentions the word "Democrat" once. Implying that the main opposition of the republican endeavor to give blacks the right to vote was the southern states, but in reality the republican ideals were permeating though the South.

The actual opposition for the 14th amendment was not the south, it was democrats. This language seems like an attempt to represent history in a way that allows the reader to draw inaccurate conclusions.

Please give me permission to fix this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernest87 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can edit the article after a few days, because you are a newly registered editor. I recommend not making a partisan point. The opposition was based on the North-South divide in the country. The political parties reflected that divide. So it is more appropriate for the article to primarily refer to the North and the South, as opposed to Republicans and Democrats. Thank you for joining Wikipedia as a registered editor. SMP0328. (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To cover the specific reactions to the amendment by individual states and their political parties or factions, we may need more than a brief reference to the traditional North-South divide. We would need sources covering the political situation in these states during and after the passing of the amendment. Dimadick (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
This shows up in this source:
 * The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
 * Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
 * Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Regarding whatever Hewitt is referring to, I would like to go back and verify these citations directly and if true, be able to cite them on their own, does anyone know how to do that?

Basically 2 things from 1866:
 * Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes
 * Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291

Either should be public domain, would they be on Wikibooks or something? Ranze (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016
144.90.1.54 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC) The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the Democratic Party, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress.

^This should be changed, it wasnt the Democrats that apposed it, it was the southern states. There were 3 political parties that apposed it and saying it was the democrats is misleading because northern deomcrats were actually in favor of it in large numbers.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016
"are seldom litigated" should be "seldomly", that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.229.231 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030319/http://columbialawreview.org/subtraction-by-addition-the-thirteenth-and-fourteenth-amendments/ to http://columbialawreview.org/subtraction-by-addition-the-thirteenth-and-fourteenth-amendments/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813090527/http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/overview/challenge.html to http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/overview/challenge.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923205536/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf to http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050918042603/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con001.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect wording?
The opening paragraph, 2nd sentence states:

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was..."

but I think it should be:

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was..."

Please update if I am correct. 96.37.38.237 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to African Americans
It has been commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution granted "Blacks" citizenship. This is absolutely false and based upon revisionist history. The 14th and the 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed for 2 express purposes: 1) To bring the South back into the Union because these so-called "Slave States" had seceded from the Union and at that time, were without Constitutional power. 2) As a reminder to the these States and any other that, any person born here were in fact citizens.

Slavery had already been abolished in the Northern States so this idea that the 14th Amendment "granted" citizenship to the African Americans, is in fact ahistorical and a part of American revisionist history that has been accepted in mainstream academic thought. Proofs can be found in several places; 1), in the Dissents of Justice Curtis (click here) and Justice Mclean (click here); 2)A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, image 1639 (click here).

In each of these instances, it is proven unequivocally that, the descendants of Africa in this nation, were in fact citizens from day one for it was their votes which helped to ratify the Articles of Confederation and also, the Constitution of the United States with the latter, via their elected representatives.

This notion that the 14th Amendment granted rights to those of African descent here is completely false and should be corrected across every medium of information which perpetuates this falsity. Sheik Way-El 05:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 05:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * these notions lack needed support from reliable secondary sources. Read up of Dred Scott decision. Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia represents the views of "mainstream academic thought", not fringe views. See WP:DUE for more information. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In the face of clear evidence from direct sources, and a secondary source (actual congressional records), the wiki editors maintain a bias that is unbecoming of an actual encyclopedia, online or otherwise. Fringe views??? Lol... that was actually funny. Again, Justice Curtis (WHO RESIGNED FROM THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE OF THE RACIST JUDICIAL DICTA GIVEN BY TANEY) coupled with Justice Mclean's dissent and the congressional record as a secondary source, CANNOT represent a "fringe view" but actual facts. You can in fact deny history, but you cannot change it.Sheik Way-El 04:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)
 * When you say the 14A did not grant citizenship to Black people, do you mean they already had it or that they still don't have it now? Dred Scott v. Sandford said that Blacks, slave or free, could never be citizens, because (according to the majority in that decision) the Constitution did not intend non-Whites to be citizens. The Citizenship Clause of the 14A overruled that disgraceful decision. SMP0328. (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorporation intended by Bingham
The article currently states:

″Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians."

The source cited does not claim that John Bingham, the author of the amendment, could have intended anything else. Moreover, is it not mainstream academic belief that the privileges and immunities clause was exactly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states? There are so many quotes from Bingham himself during the legislative process articulating what he means:

"The necessity for the first section of this amendment...is the power in the people...to do that by congressional enactment which hitherto they have not had the power to do... that is, to protect by national law the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction whenever the same shall be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State."

"[M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guaranteed privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, 'cruel and unusual punishments' have been inflicted..."

"Hereafter the American people cannot have peace, if, as in the past, States are permitted to take away the freedom of speech..."

"[T]hese great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States."

How can you get more clear than: "[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

Beyond just Bingham, essentially the sole framer, the broader political dialogue enforces that this amendment was precisely designed to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states. "Anyone following the debate in the New York Times and the widely circulated Herald would have known that Bingham was attempting to nationalize the Bill of Rights." .

I do not know of any serious current academic attempt to argue that the framers did not specifically intend to facilitate incorporation. The article should be amended to avoid giving the impression that this is a legitimate viewpoint and Akhil Amar's is just a solitary dissent, as those impressions are not true. The1mane1event (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus among academics is that the 14A was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, but there are dissenters (alive and dead). In addition to Akhil Amar, see Raoul Berger. It is not for Wikipedia to decide who is right. SMP0328. (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a fair point. Without claiming that older conclusions like those of Berger and Fairman are right or wrong, perhaps including some of Bingham's own quotes in the section to allow the reader him or herself to decide would be beneficial. The1mane1event (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - is there any SCOTUS decision explaining what this mean ? If yes, lets add it in the article. P. S. Trump supporters say that those words can give to the President power to limit the right of illigal immigrant's children to get US citizenship. 46.71.245.207 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)--a featured article.--Rajulbat (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which SCOTUS stated that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful." —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Derogatory Term
'Illegal immigrant' is widely viewed as derogatory and is certainly not apolitical in its usage. AP Style guide recommends not using it. Wikipedia shouldn't either. Valid alternatives are 'Undocumented immigrant' or 'immigrant in the country illegally'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tory kennedy (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is it derogatory? It refers to the fact that they have entered the country illegally, and have (sometimes permanently) immigrated here from elsewhere. 216.107.203.147 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My objection would not be that it is derogatory, but that it is inaccurate as applied to a person. An act or an action can be illegal; a person cannot. It is appropriate to refer to illegal immigration, or to someone having illegally immigrated, which refers to the act of immigration that breaks the law; but the adjective "illegal" does not make sense as applied to a person, in almost all cases. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019
Change citation 127 from "Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1033 (1866), page 2776" to "Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1033 (1866), page 2766" Stew Long (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Citation fixed . SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Usage of "enslaved person" versus "slave"
Given that we are in the midst of a national reckoning related to race, I believe that it's high time to retire the word "slave" on Wikipedia, at least as it relates to African chattel slavery.

In a 2015 Slate essay on the subject, Katy Waldman described one side of the debate this way: “The heightened delicacy of ‘enslaved person’ — the men and women it describes are humans first, commodities second — (does) important work: restoring identity, reversing a cascade of institutional denials and obliterations,” she wrote.

“To reduce the people involved to a nonhuman noun … reproduce(s) the violence of slavery on a linguistic level; to dispense with it amount(s) to a form of emancipation.”

In her Pulitzer-Prize winning series of articles on enslavement in America and its legacy, Nikole Hannah-Jones studiously avoids using the word "slave," which reduces a human being to a condition. Instead, she uses words such as "enslaved person" and "enslaved African."

Shouldn't this article reflect this change in usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynwah (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They weren't merely "enslaved persons." They were completely denied their humanity. To be a slave was to be considered at best a farm animal, at worst an inanimate object. While we, of course, know they were humans, I think the word "slave" is proper, because it reflects the dehumanizing effect of slavery. SMP0328. (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * we follow the reliable sources--and the leading scholarly journals are using both terms in summer 2020. Here are some examples: (1) article title= "The Patriot Slave" by PETERSON, American Scholar. Summer 2020; (2) "Slavery in Rhode Island" By: Richardson, American History (June 2020) discusses the Slave History Medallions project on the slave trade history of Rhode Island. (3)" Different Forty Acres Land, Kin, and Migration in the Late Nineteenth-Century West." By: ROBERTS, Journal of the Civil War Era (June 2020) how mixed-race Chickasaw freedpeople (women and men formerly enslaved by Chickasaw Indians) exercised their freedom after the Civil War. (4) "Naming Our African Ancestors" By: Shumway, Journal of the Early Republic (Summer 2020) using a database to research the histories of enslaved people. (5) "Trouble the water: The Baltimore to New Orleans coastwise slave trade, 1820–1860" By: Williams, Slavery & Abolition (June 2020) coastwise traffic in slaves. (6) "They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South" By: PARRY, Journal of Southern History (May 2020). Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I understand why it's being added to some articles. But I'm not sure that I don't agree with . I also think we need to be careful about "African" - that should apply only to those born in Africa. I'm not sure this is the best place for this discussion.

Doug Weller talk 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020
Change the citation on the text section to a more updated link instead of having an archive of a dead one (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xiv) Repudor (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. It looks like the page at the Nat'l Archives was moved, and rather than update the URL someone (or more likely a bot, I haven't checked) just went to an archive (of the archives!) rather than updating the URL. TJRC (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Section 3 and the Capitol Hill insurrection?
The 25th amendment is being talked up a lot regarding Trump and the recent riot. Is there talk out there of the 14th? Presumably it could apply to some sitting congressmen, not just Trump. 73.81.117.2 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As of the 10th of January, Nancy Pelosi apparently made an explicit reference to the 14th amendment section 3 in a letter to her colleagues. 123.205.17.149 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See this: https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1348420705839239170 123.205.17.149 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I found a few sources about this and added a short paragraph. As far as I can tell, it was cited in the articles of impeachment and also mentioned as a potential way to disqualify Trump from office if the Senate does not vote to convict. AnonQuixote (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Who asks questions in an HTML comment?
re: The sources cited in that section don't get into it, other than vague statements like "it was barely used". But I think it means that a great many people who had engaged in rebellion or given aid (Confederate soldiers, office holders, citizens...) and thus were disqualified from holding office, nevertheless held office, and nobody did anything about it. No doubt because it was probably hard to find someone in the Reconstruction South who had not at some point at least given aid to a Confederate. Enforcing it would probably mean gutting the state and local governments in former-Confederate states, hence the amnesty. Eric Foner is quoted by ABC as saying that it was used a handful of times before the amnesty but doesn't give example. (Note he appears to be talking about its use to remove sitting officials, as opposed to disqualify candidates for office.)

Here are the relevant quotes from the cited sources in case you want to add detail:
 * "For a few years, according to Foner, the law was enforced in the South and there were examples of people who had to leave their public offices at the direction of the U.S. Congress and local officials because they had previously been Confederates. But in 1872, Congress passed a larger amnesty law, and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was essentially shelved." ABC
 * "Even though it has only been used a handful of times in American history, it's there." ABC quoting Foner
 * "In 1872, Magliocca wrote, President Ulysses S. Grant and then Congress 'concluded that Section Three was not helping Reconstruction and could be making matters worse by giving white Southerners an excuse to aid the Ku Klux Klan,' which the federal government was trying to squash." WaPo
 * "With a presidential election looming, Grant told Congress: 'More than six years having elapsed since the last hostile gun was fired between the armies then arrayed against each other, it may well be considered whether it is not now time that the disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amendment should be removed.' He continued: 'When the purity of the ballot is secure, majorities are sure to elect officers reflecting the views of the majority. I do not see the advantage or propriety of excluding men from office merely because they were before the rebellion of standing and character sufficient to be elected to positions requiring them to take oaths to support the Constitution, and admitting to eligibility those entertaining precisely the same views, but of less standing in their communities.' Congress passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which removed a prohibition against holding office by all but the most senior Confederate leaders." WaPo
 * "Southerners deeply opposed the provision, arguing it would harm any effort to unite the country. Though it was ultimately passed, Section 3 was sparsely applied and, as Magliocca put it, 'quickly neutered' by Congress just four years later." WaPo Levivich harass/hound 07:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Who asks questions in a section heading?

 * Look, I'm just doing the copyedit. IF the text should be adjusted per the above, we know we can rely on you to take care of it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Grammar in Section 1.2.3
Since the article is semi-protected, and I am not auto-confirmed yet, I currently cannot edit out a grammar mistake in this article. It occurred to me that there is a grammar mistake in Section 1.2.3 Loss of Citizenship, stating that "(e.g., the Communist party, [other totalitarian party], or terrorist organizations) . . . ." I think that we should change "other totalitarian party" from its singular form to its plural form. CalciumTetraoxide (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It a near-quote from the cited source: "A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization." . But, yeah, that's a pretty awkward paraphrase of its own cited source, . There's no reason it has to be a quote (and it's not indicated as a quote); it could probably be smoothed. Let me take a run at it. TJRC (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please restore Text section that was removed (in GF) without discussion
The section 'Text', containing - the text of the Amendment was removed with the edit summary "text no longer needed"; the rationale, I presume, is that each (Amendment) section's text is now placed within its respective (article) section that contains discussion/analysis of the particular section.

Now, personally, I don't see any good reason why we can't also have the text of each (Amendment) section included at the top of its respective (article) section, as it currently is, while also containing the full text in its own section at the top: the Amendment text is not excessively long, and as compared with the total amount of text in the article only makes up a minuscule proportion.

It has always been the universal standard practice for Amendments to the US constitution to include a section containing the text of the amendment - afaict always as the first section after the lede. This is still how our articles on all of the other Amendments are laid out. Therefore, I request that it be restored until there is a consensus to remove it. Thanks! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:E915:C0E7:63E2:3E2C (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't see a good reason to remove the text section. As a encyclopedia, the most sought after, introductory information should be placed early in the page and in a easy to identify manner. And for a constitutional amendment, it doesn't get more introductory or sought after than that. DolphinCowBoy65 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LorraineLee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022
Under "Ratification by the states"

"Since Ohio and New Jersey re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003, all U.S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment."

Planned EDIT: '''added words in bold/italic removed words in subscript '''

Since then, Oregon re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on May 21, 1973, as well as Ohio and New Jersey re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003, all U.S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment.

TruthYeller (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I see no reason to change this. Ohio and New Jersey were the last states to ratify, but Oregon wasn't by a long mark. Aaron Liu (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

14th Amendment (Unabridged)
I'm sorry, was there a problem with posting the full content of the 14th amendment without color commentary? what are you trying to accomplish here? source rejected 2601:805:780:9A0:FC92:955A:29E4:2BBC (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Couy Griffin to Jan6 section
I can't edit because of protection, but please add something about Couy Griffin being removed from office and barred from future office under 14A: "A New Mexico judge on Tuesday removed January 6 rioter and Cowboys for Trump founder Cuoy Griffin from his elected position as a county commissioner for his role in the US Capitol attack." https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/couy-griffin-new-mexico-january-6/index.html Davidmsterns (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023
In the second sentence of the article, please change "Often considered as one of..." to "Often considered one of...." "Consider" in this case has both a direct object and an object complement. For example: "The students considered the response" = [verb + DO], but "The students considered the response incomplete" or "The students considered the response an evasion" = [verb + DO + OC]. In the second sentence of the article, we have an implied [verb + DO + OC], with the underlying structure "Scholars often consider the Fourteenth Amendment one of the most consequential...," which has been rearranged to a participial modifier in the phrase "Often considered one of the most...." 146.187.0.73 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

GA criteria issues
The article no longer meets the GA criteria, particularly the new requirement of inline citations. I also think that the article in places fails to stay focused on the topic, and could benefit from greater concision and use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Constitutional law scholars have written that Section 3 is "automatic" and "self-executing"
Constitutional law scholars have recently published a legal review and article on the topic. The research paper is by lawyers from The Federalist Society. A related article was published in The Atlantic, and is by J. Michael Luttig and Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe.

I propose adding the following (or something similar) to the Jan. 6 section of the article (immediately after the first sentence of the second paragraph):


 * Some legal experts have written that Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of Congressional action, while others believe a court would be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3.

Probably that language could be improved upon to flow better, but I leave that up to other editors.

Thank you for including mention of this, along with the citations. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Added related edit to the main article - should now be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome thanks, looks great!
 * Only minor thing I noticed is that there was a typo in one of the edits, where scholars was accidentally written as "schiolars".
 * Thanks again. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - typo fixed - Thanks for letting me know - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

edit request for typo,
The section Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has a comma that should probably be a period, unless perhaps the end of the sentence was deleted by mistake?

(Italics added to make comma/period easier to find.) Please change
 * Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of Congressional action, according to the constitutional scholars, This presentation was followed...

to
 * Section 3 protections are automatic and "self-executing", independent of Congressional action, according to the constitutional scholars. This presentation was followed...

Thanks. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you so much for noticing.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   04:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
In the "Trump disqualification argument" section, please: 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C9F7:159D:DC40:694E (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove "President Barack Obama appointed" from the sentence, "One week later on September 1, President Barack Obama appointed United States District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg dismissed the case..." as it is both confusing and unnecessary; a judge is a judge.
 * 2) Remove the word "also" from the same sentence: "...dismissed the case for lack of standing as Caplan is a citizen, and thus his complaint also lacked proper jurisdiction." In addition to what?
 * 3) Link the first occurrence of "Donald Trump".
 * ✅. Grorp (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the way it was phrased was confusing, but as to it being unnecessary - it was mentioned in the article. Couldn't it just be rephrased/clarified?
 * The "also" refers to lack of jurisdiction in addition to standing. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies
— Assignment last updated by Editsforequity (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request factual error
Hi there, While reading the section Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Trump_disqualification_debate I noticed a bullet-point (currently the third one) mentioning the lawsuit in CO to disqualify Trump from office was supposedly filed by "a bipartisan group of Colorado voters". In reality though, the lawsuit was filed by Republican and unaffiliated voters, and no Democratic voters joined the suit, as evidenced by the messaging on the CREW-website (see: https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/lawsuit-filed-to-remove-trump-from-ballot-in-co-under-14th-amendment/ )

It would seem prudent to me, particularly in the current heated political environment in the US, to be unambiguously clear as to the partypolitical makeup of the suing parties involved, and to not make any suggestion of even the slightest partypolitical influence by any Democratic-affiliated person whatsoever. This obviously because the subject of the suit, former president Trump, together with his campaign would do anything to make this suit seem like a political effort instead of an effort to protect the Rule of Law.

So, if somebody with editing-rights could kindly correct this minor yet important error, that would be really helpful. Thanks. 2A02:A212:2BC0:8280:C808:35A7:492D:9C9E (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not an error. Check the sources cited in the article, for example CNN describes them as, and AP says the lawsuit was . BBC and NBC both just say , without more detail. I summarized that as "a group of bipartisan voters," but I'd be fine with either "a group of voters" or "a group of Republican and independent voters funded by a liberal watchdog group" (CNN) or "by a left-leaning group" (AP) or something similar. But what we should not say is "Republican and independent voters with no Democrats," because while technically true, it misrepresents the situation by omitting the liberal/left-leaning funder of the lawsuit (and other similar lawsuits). Personally, I think "bipartisan" accurately conveys that the plaintiffs and their funders came from across the political spectrum: liberals, Republicans, independents. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023
(45's Colorado case was appealed to the state supreme court, not dismissed) Ka2abr (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Pinchme123 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional questions of Trump disqualification debate - Removal of 20th Amendment Section 1 and 2 content
Thanks for your assistance in shoring up the Trump disqualification debate subsection! Just curious as to why you removed the content summarizing Sections 1 and 2 of the 20th Amendment. I don't wish to restore it without consensus, but I would argue that it should be restored considering that those sections outline the timeline of contingent elections. If Trump receives a majority of electoral votes and there are sustained objections at the 2025 Electoral College vote count to counting all of Trump's electoral votes under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it is worth noting that any following contingent election by the House of Representatives would be conducted by the incoming congressional session rather than the lame-duck session. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I had overlooked that consequence due to the way the sentence about it was structured. I have now restored the removed sentences and re-arranged the one that I had misread. Thomas Bull (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

could you explain more explicitly?
I am not sure of the meaning of "This decision is currently stayed". 2A01:CB19:82C:5700:6809:7147:3A6B:9939 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See Stay of proceedings. I'll link to it in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Magnus1313's edit regarding Anderson v. Griswold
Per a request on my talk, I'm explaining why I reverted this edit of 's.

I have no objection to stating in the first sentence that "the Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment". I object to the portion saying "even though he was not found guilty and was acquitted during his impeachment". This is irrelevant: the impeachment and the disqualification are completely separate, and Trump did not even argue this in Colorado as far as I can tell (arguments not made in below courts are generally not considered by higher courts).

Regarding the second change (regarding the U.S. Supreme Court "hear[ing] the case" on January 4), the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet been petitioned for certiorari (i.e. asked them to consider the case, which they do not have to, although they likely will here). The deadline to ask them to do so without un-staying the Colorado Supreme Court decision is January 4th. There will then be more time for response (and potentially reply) briefs. If the court does grant certiorari (as they are likely to), there will be a schedule for the submission of additional "merits" briefs. The U.S. Supreme Court will certainly not hear the merits of the case by January 4. And "would seek relief" is not pejorative, although I would prefer "would seek review" or "would seek certiorari"; I'll change that now.

I hope this addresses your concerns. &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Certiorari makes sense. Why couldn't you just have edited it rather than revert it?  Magnus1313 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I endorse this analysis by . Unless reliable sources explicitly make the connection between the Colorado ruling and Trump's acquittal in his second impeachment trial, then neither should Wikipedia editors, per WP:SYNTH. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" is the catch here. If a notable constitutional attorney, such as Mark Levin, made the connection, would it be reverted?  Likely.  Magnus1313 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We discuss actual sources here, in context. Discussing imaginary, hypothetical sources is not the purpose of this talk page. We could discuss this on your talk page if you had not instructed me to stay off your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)