Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
the 14th Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or Negro Briggs v. Elliott: 1952 347 U.S. 483 Brown case 1 Summerton, South Carolina Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County: 1952 103 F. Supp. 337 Brown Case 2 - Prince Edward County, Virginia Gebhart v. Belton: 1952 33 Del. Ch. 144 Brown Case 2 - Claymont ...
United States due process case law (4 C, 43 P) United States equal protection case law (1 C, 222 P) United States Fourteenth Amendment, section five case law (9 P)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.
Case history; Prior: Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California; 71 F. 382: Holding; The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be interpreted in light of English common law, [1] and thus it grants U.S. citizenship to almost all children born to alien parents on American soil, with only a limited set of exceptions.
In 1898, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Supreme Court reached a defining decision in a case known as the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Lee explains that Wong Kim Ark was the ...
The ruling cites section five of the 14th Amendment in saying Congress has the "power to enforce" it through "appropriate legislation," but Bobbitt said it has taken no such action since the case ...
In its 1898 ruling, the Supreme Court majority said the plain words of the 14th Amendment protected the son of Chinese nationals who was born in the United States. “The Amendment, in clear words ...
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five landmark cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals.