The 14th Amendment | Constitution 101

What is the 14th Amendment and how has it been applied throughout history? Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, explains the structures of the amendment and the different #SupremeCourt cases that shaped its application. Rosen also examines the central role that the 14th Amendment has played in the struggle for civil rights and its importance to racial equity.
#Constitution101
This video is part of the NEW Constitution 101 course and curriculum.
Teachers, check out "The 14th Amendment: Battles for Freedom and Equality" unit of the full 15-week curriculum: constitutioncenter.org/educat...
For the self-guided course and related videos, visit: constitutioncenter.org/the-co...
For more educational resources on the 14th Amendment, click here: constitutioncenter.org/educat...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on KZbin: kzbin.info...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c...

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

It is amazing the thought and skill of congress waaaay back then compared to the circus it has become !!!! They back then accomplished things of importance !!!

[@rwcowell]

Now all it is are corrupt democrats lying and cheating their way through congress, while the feckless useless republicans virtue signal getting nothing done. It's a complete and disgraceful clown show!

[@anamariaguadayol2335]

The Constitution is not divinely inspired. See the First Amendment.

[@fredisaacs9350]

@@anamariaguadayol2335 correct, but I think they misjudged the greed of man and how crooked and corrupt all religions are , otherwise I think the forefathers would've stipulated in writing more

[@grannys3426]

@@fredisaacs9350 Err...balance of power is there BECAUSE they knew how corrupt people can be...the Constitution's only as good as those who exercise, protect and defend it...Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld Jim Crow segregation, was another worse-than circus in an earlier time...the dissenting opinion predicted its overturning yet the conflict continues...wake up America...we have a living Constitution as long as our hearts minds and bodies uphold its hard-won intentions.

[@tooterooterville]

@@fredisaacs9350 Do you really want the government deciding which religions they approve of?

[@cmaurice9133]

Thank you for this education on the constitution.14th admendment. The entire constitution needs to be taught over this channel.❤

[@georgesheffield1580]

Not by DeSantis or Abbott or the MAGA GOP

[@arcanondrum6543]

Plutocrats won't allow it... How can you find out what I know? WHERE would you look first?

[@almahymon3056]

DESANTIS ban BOOKS 😢 KNOWLEDGE 😅power😢 NO STOP :;;REMAIN 😢 STILL 🛑 911b❤B. I. D. E. N HarrisBLUE* ThEY🎉t O g e t h e r$ inner 💙

[@scotmark]

@@arcanondrum6543 First I'd ask YOU. Then I'd try to figure out if I believed you by verifying via known reliable sources. Simples! 😼

[@arcanondrum6543]

@@scotmark Indeed, yes but WHERE (without going far at all) would you look? It's about as specific as I can get without being sense sworded.

[@tygrahof9268]

Amazing that the IDEA of this amendment wasn't seen until 1964, and still fought to this day.

[@ReformedRepublican]

The South, former Dixiecrats, were so incensed that "property" could now vote, go to the same schools , and be FREE, all the bigots contained the Republican party to the point where l feel it is in jeopardy. All the hatred and bigotry are now solidly into the former party of Lincoln and have now turned it into the party of,Trump and Putin. Treasonous, just like MTG and her white supremacist Confederate flag.

[@mrj2654]

​@@Ohotniktrolly make it so.

[@ididntagree]

DEA

[@ToIsleOfView]

This is essential information for every human being. Our constitution is not about granting rights but is about forbidding the government from infringing our natural rights.

[@jvanek8512]

Rights don't exist.

[@jamesdalton7191]

It is a guarantee of our rights 🇺🇸

[@alansach8437]

If people have "natural" or "god given" rights, wouldn't all people, in any country have the same rights? Yet they do not. They have the rights granted to them by their government. We SHOULD have these rights, but in reality, throughout history, people have only had those rights as granted by the crown. At some point, in a regressed society, revolt may occur, but even then, as a new government is established, certain rights are almost immediately curtailed once again. Your theory is what SHOULD be, but has never been since the establishment of governments.

[@ToIsleOfView]

Wow! Where are you from? Read the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. Natural rights from our Creator are the basis of American government. Its no theory or wish list. It is a fact! @@alansach8437

[@gorgeousfreeman1318]

@@alansach8437 The point I'd these are born rights, and any government which infringes on these is illegitimate. Kindly actually learn what rights means and the history behind this subject

[@tigersforever4577]

Thank you. So valuable and important.

[@chiomachikaodinaka3103]

I am a Nigerian. Thank you for this video.

[@jhoodfysh]

Thank you that was very educational.

[@fsm12385]

Nice to see a full chamber to include all the seats above " Not Today !

[@ginawagner6956]

The Supreme Court today is a 🤡 show. And a corrupt disgrace 😔

[@CmdrMic]

How about doing a follow up on 14th Sections 4 and 5! Now, it is desperately needed!!!!!!!

[@AS-5884]

This is a great video. I hope they do this with all the amendments.

[@scotmark]

I hope they do it with all of *this* amendment. I'm champing at the bit for their coverage of Section 4! 😺

[@JescaML]

Go look it’s there

[@kevmorris3000]

It's amazing how the courts can ignore the plain language of an Amendment, or just interpret it away. We see that today in 2nd Amendment court cases. Even after the recent Supreme Court Bruen decision, lower courts continue to ignore that ruling.

[@Au_Ag_ratio5021]

A person is as of the 14th assigned as a citizen and given privileges and immunities.

[@jordanwardle11]

Judicial immunity. More protective than qualified immunity

[@ferdinandsiegel4470]

What I read in the archives that the man who wrote the 1st part ( John Bingham) of the amendment said that the 14th amendment was for the people who were in and born in the USA before and during the Civil War were citizens of the USA.

[@ronaldpoole3273]

Does it specifically state that?

[@roypittasr]

Yes, mainly to protect the rights of the newly freed black slaves, which Democrats were still trying to deprive of any Rights. It was never intended to give Anchor Babies citizenship, that’s a politically motivated tactic adopted later.

[@randyhilton6629]

@@roypittasr I doubt the Wong Kim Ark case was politically motivated in the sense you are inferring. The babies born in the US are citizens, it doesn't mean the parents are, that could be argued as politically motivated or a humanitarian motivation.

[@SaneTexan]

Intent becomes important when the words are ambiguous. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." is unambiguous. Regardless of Mr. Bingham's intent, the people who ratified the Amendment surely knew what it said.

[@randyhilton6629]

@@SaneTexan I agree

[@teddyudoye1515]

Persistently listening to the clear understanding till grounded .

[@patcomerford5596]

Excellent. Thank you for expanding my Total Knowledge filter.❤

[@sharonreynolds7423]

This is the most interesting and informative presentation I have seen or read in decades. Better than my college education. Thank You for this wonderful, thorough explanation. Prejudice has always been ugly and should have always been illegal. Will we never change?

[@scotmark]

Only us radical left commie progressives are capable of change... 🙊

[@michellebobier-groves7821]

As long as white Christian Nationals spread the "my race is best, my God is the only god and the rest of the world can go to hell" message, there will be prejudice and racism and indifference.

[@chrisyacoback6320]

Thank You... I really enjoy and appreciate your content. 🇺🇸

[@justmyopinion9883]

Thank you for sharing this educational video. I want to watch the entire series on the Constitution. New subscriber here.

[@thethe-kd5wy]

Thankyou for this educational lesson . It's something everyone should watch . Please share more of our constitutional laws . They are greatly needed .

[@scottolifant5358]

Like many legal interpretations, they take on the name of the case where there were established, Here it is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 456, 88 S.Ct 1602, 16 l.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

[@memyname1771]

This covers only Section 1 of the 14th Amendment! Sections 2, 3, and 4, which are relevant to the affairs of today, were totally ignored! Only one fifth of the 14th Amendment was discussed.

[@karyannfontaine8757]

I would like a continuation delving into Sections 2,3,4.

[@DigYourPlanet]

Thanks

[@robertforrester578]

Good work. Thanks from Philadelphia.

[@mlancaster54]

That was an amazing presentation! Thank you!

[@davidbethea8186]

I like the explanation of the 14th amendment.

[@alvin8391]

Because of the US Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment's greatest impact is not the protection of citizens' rights, though it is cited for that purpose. It is and has been the granting of human rights to corporations - an exercise not founded in the Constitution itself nor in the Amendment itself, nor in any other part of the Constitution. It was an extension of power to corporations that the Court, without any explicit foundation, allowed to be promulgated in a summary of its 1886 decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway by the Court's reporter. This clerk wrote in his summary of the proceedings that the Court's opinion was that corporations are covered by the 14th Amendment. The Amendment itself states that it applies to "native born and naturalized" persons. Corporations are neither born, native or otherwise, nor are they naturalized, nor are they persons! We know that the Court did favor this fraud on the meaning and intention of the 14 Amendment, though the Justices did not wish to write so, explicitly. They used the Court reporter's summary as a vehicle to convey this dictum, and succeeding Supreme Courts and congresses never challenged it. Of course not! They were all consipirators in puting this boon to corporate power over on the American people who never would have approved the enormous empowerment of "robber barrons" that resulted from it. Later decisions of the Supreme Court have only added to corporate power. For example the 2010 decision in FEC v. Citizens United enabled corporations to sponsor with their dollars the election campaigns of congress and the President, practically without limit. The Supreme Court's betrayal of the Constitution is the reason that our country is no longer of, by, and for our people but rather of, by, and for corporations, the MIC, the imperial warmongers who rule the United States.

[@rondo1775]

Within each section of code, you'll find a table of definitions, which defines the word "person." The list consists of nonliving entries, a la, corporations. So, it's not that corporations are people, it's that people, who call themselves "citizens of the United States," are acting as corporations under the 14th amendment. Furthermore , the 14th amendment creates a new status of citizenship that of the federal government. Also, you should find it helpful to reread the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States and note that it is the congress calling itself the United States while it is addressing the "several States," a la, the "United States of America." Thus, Washington DC is no different to the "several States" than the Vatican is to Italy or the City of London is to England. In short, what we have here is a dual parallel system and but a handful of people actually know and understand it. Sorry you're not one of them.

[@PubliusUSA]

Excellent. You're absolutely correct. Moreover, the Founders created a zero party system. Read President George Washington's Farewell Address, specifically paragraphs 19 to 25. Madison No.10, Hamilton No. 09 (Federalist Papers). Also, Article 4 Section 4 USC, the Republican Form Guarantee Clause is still undefined. The SCOTUS in 1849 declared this clause to be a political question and SCOTUS refuse to answer it to this day. Lastly, the political party system officially began in 1829 with Andrew Jackson. This was a coup by England. They recolonized the USA. Jackson privatized banking, broke Indian treaties made by the Founders, and initiated Gunboat Diplomacy to protect the US, UK, and French opium smugglers to China. FDR's grandfather, Warren Delano Jr, was the premier US opium smuggler to China during the 1830s working thru Russell & Co NYC.

[@mrj2654]

I was wondering when you guys would show up.

[@PubliusUSA]

@@mrj2654 Epstein didn't kill himself, lol.

[@mrj2654]

@@PubliusUSA maybe with enough toilet paper you can make a steady noose?

[@PowerSearchYT]

Love these.

[@theduder2617]

SO MANY PEOPLE would not have been a part of my life had those views survived. So many friends I wouldn't know. I might not have been alive to leave this comment. The only thing my birth giver did for me was to show me exactly why I would never possess such horrendous views. I am thankful to exist at this time. I am so thankful for everyone I have met and known during my run at this life. Long live humanity and the 14th Amendment.

[@Johnten42P]

Fabulous!

[@corinnasanchez5821]

Thank you!! Can you do this for all of the amendments, please!

[@JescaML]

Did you bother to look before you post

[@stephaniewayward6336]

Thank u for this

[@isrratapia8228]

Context is important

[@ianhogg4285]

Thank you. It was useful to me to understand some of the historical context of the USA constitution. Not being from the USA, I've looked on your constitution with awe and some reverence for the people who created it, but also with suspicion and bemusement. It is not comforting to hear that the Supreme Court of the US has a long history of making bizarre decisions and that the lawmakers in your Congress seem unwilling to correct the law to prevent misinterpretation. The Supreme Court 2nd amendment decision allowing the USA to be littered with lethal weapons at the expense of thousands of lives annually is an all too obvious example. If people believe that the constitution is a mythological text similar to the Bible, Koran or Iliad and should never be altered even though society has radically changed since it was written, necessary reform will be slow and tortuous.

[@scotmark]

Hey, that's unfair. The last Amendment was passed a mere two hundred years after its proposal, so it's possible! 😹 The political appointment of the judiciary *is* a huge flaw in the entire setup, however...

[@blkcobra03]

LOL,,, You're funny. The supreme court (SC) once approved of slavery. The SC is nothing more than 9 tyrants dressed in black (satanic) robes. Cars kill more than shooters on psychotropic drugs but you didn't mention banning cars. Why is that?

[@shawnblackhurst5246]

What? The 2nd amendment has not been misinterpreted. It’s there so the people are able to protect themselves from a corrupt over bearing government, like the one we fought against for our freedom. The one that treated its own citizens as inferiors.

[@NakedProphet]

The US Constitution was given to a population that was immersed in the Bible as the Word of God, which you and many today dismiss as mythological. The Constitution can provide Liberty and Justice for all, but only in a society that has the common ground that the first duty of man is to submit to the Creator and to walk in His ways.

[@scotmark]

@@NakedProphet What a load of old cobblers.

[@Keli-nw8fy]

Interesting indeed

[@carlostrivinos9947]

How this applies to the ceiling situation? I'm not quite clear

[@rodericconverse8819]

I am a big fan of Justice Thomas and his concurring opinions in McDonald v. Chicago 2010 and Timbs v. Indiana 2019. Both were to him to apply portions of the first eight amendments to the states through the privileges or immunities clause of Section 1. One was to apply the 2nd Amendment and the other to apply the 8th. In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen 2022, Justice Thomas in his majority opinion seems to have said the same view without saying it. There definitely is no selective incorporation doctrine angle to apply the 2nd through the due process clause in NYSRPA. What never gets into privileges or immunities arguments concerning the 14th is the historical aspect of that clause. It was the lead clause of the 14th when the House of Representatives passed the 14th on May 10, 1866. On May 23, 1866 Senator Jacob Howard went through the meanings of that clause to be provisions of the first eight amendments and to RESTRICT state power. (Congressional Globe, pages 2765-66) He was quoted in numerous newspapers. Massachusetts House Document #149 dated February 28, 1867 showed their legislature went over the 14th Amendment about a month before that state ratified it. When it covered Section 1, it quoted a number of the first eight amendment rights it protected against state power. On March 31, 1871 John Bingham explained why he changed the wording of what became Section 1. It was to undo, reverse, or overturn (what would you call it?) Barron v. Baltimore 1833 which ruled 8-0 that the first eight amendments did not limit state power. Also, if the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 really killed the privileges or immunities clause, then why did Justice Miller, when he was speculating about the privileges of citizens of the United States, include "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances..."? That did not come from the original Constitution. That came from the 1st Amendment.

[@brucebennett5338]

What about sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 14th Amendment?

[@wswanberg]

Given recent events, failing to even mention the debt clause would seem to be a glaring omission.

[@3jacen]

That's because this lie about the debt limit was created 10 seconds ago and has no legal standing.

[@nomore6167]

"Given recent events, failing to even mention the debt clause would seem to be a glaring omission." - On the surface, it's not a glaring omission, as this video was posted in August 2022, before Republicans decided to hold the economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling (and, as a result, violate Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution). However, when you dig deeper, you learn that much of the national debt is owned by the Social Security Administration, and since Republicans are attempting to eliminate Social Security, they are explicitly attempting to invalidate that portion of the national debt, so it should have been covered at least from that perspective.

[@3jacen]

@@nomore6167 Oh I get it, this was before the NPC update to pull this argument out democrats ass. Otherwise someone in the debt debates of yesteryear would have made this insane argument before.

[@nomore6167]

@@3jacen "Oh I get it, this was before the NPC update to pull this argument out democrats ass" - What the hell are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense. But then, given the rest of your comments, why would I expect it to make sense? "Otherwise someone in the debt debates of yesteryear would have made this insane argument before" - Only an idiot would think upholding the Constitution of the United States is "insane". But thanks for showing exactly where you stand. Oh, and the debt ceiling has always been routinely raised as a matter of course. But go ahead and ignore facts and reality. It's what you idiots do best.

[@jordanwardle11]

​@@nomore6167it's a shame that both parties would rather kick the can down the road than lower spending

[@JRead0691]

The great lengths to which the post civil war south went to making sure that racism was still institutionalized astounds me... granted, what astounds me more is that it is still needed today to protect from similar policies that keep finding their way back into the fold... It gives me very little hope for the future of humanity.

[@Locutus_lives]

See that's a comment today. You give no evidence. What about the disarming of the south and the burning down of their homes?

[@raphaelgmur3898]

Very interessting video... but I have a question. Due to the current problem with the debt ceiling, I read multiple times that President Biden could invoke the 14th ammendement. But I didn't here a clause in this video about debt ceiling, why?

[@demetrioalbidrez684]

Good Information ! My Question is as follows : Is the Statue of Limitations Constitutional because of the time factor 2 Years to file a suit ?? I am disabled form an operation gone terribly wrong . And now have astronomical prescription bills what can I do ?

[@karyannfontaine8757]

Contact a television NEWs station. You situation should be shared as many other people are in the same situation. I hope others come forward and it is broadcast over the internet. This must be made public knowledge which may lead to change.

[@user-qr9uh1fd8g]

A GoFundMe maybe will help you

[@edwardroche2480]

The Fourteenth Amendment also states that no state-of-the-union can make a law that will take away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Could this mean that someone who has been arrested for a felony in a state and convicted can still own a firearm under the Second Amendment. And having been convicted and your 2nd Amendment rights removed can they also remove your other rights like the freedom of speech. Our government is full of contradictions.

[@veramae4098]

Basically trivia: I became a poll watcher during the Trump v. Biden election, because while I was voting I saw the workers make 2 bad decisions which would have deprived people of the right to vote. I spoke up, then raced home and signed up to be a poll watcher, printed it out, and raced back. Sat and watched until the polls closed. Only saw 1 more mistake. Anyhow, in Michigan, anyone convicted of a state felony and does the time, regains all rights upon release. Federal felony convictions however, do not restore the right to vote upon release. I was a librarian in a state prison at the time and learned quite a bit. The next day I phoned the local head of the elections office and had quite a discussion about a sign posted at the voting site, requiring photo I.D. That is not Michigan law. Yes, a photo I..D. if you have one, but if not you just sign a statement saying you are who you say you are. The head did not believe me, finally agreed to get information from the state office, and called me back the next day to say I was right. (She was irritated.)

[@scotmark]

@@veramae4098 Just the kind of fascinating trivia I like to read! (And write😼.)

[@edwardroche2480]

@@veramae4098 it's nice to have firsthand knowledge of things. It removes all doubt and makes you feel better. Hey thanks for the service to America for America

[@nomore6167]

"Could this mean that someone who has been arrested for a felony in a state and convicted can still own a firearm under the Second Amendment" - More important than that are the states that revoke a person's right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony. Just think about that for a moment -- those people are allowed to choose their defense counsel to represent them in court, but they're not allowed to choose (vote) who they want to represent them in the government.

[@scotmark]

@@nomore6167 This type of thing gives me a Martian-listening-to-yodelling-at-the-end-of-Mars-Attacks! moment... 🙉

[@maximonacer5039]

Thank you for sharing the relevance and divine inspiration of the American Constitution. I was one of the first citizens who was exposed to the horrors of the administrative State. The docket 2-19-cv-12419 Maximo v. Rodriguez was a George Floyd’s like execution attempt against me preceded by two prior police abuses instances in the State of New Jersey and those were attempts against life. Why? Because I am an a certified medical doctor who has described, designed and built prototypes for new engines that work with water instead of oil. Consider now a simple principle of human life applied to industrialization and agriculture: The free transfer of mass, liquid or matter between compartments (example osmosis and diffusion) is essential for the superiority of the circulatory system compared to any engine humans have ever built before because the free transfer of mass does not pollute, it does not have huge losses in friction nor temperature waste and it produces the equivalent to a very large wattage or capacity to lift masses, millions of watts of potential energy capacity compared to proportional fewer volts it consumes. Genesis 1:07. Vertical water displacement…VW-D engines!

[@memyname1771]

The founders might argue "divine inspiration". The Constitution was written by men who were well aware of the persecution of people who did not choose to worship in the manner dictated by the heads of various countries in Europe. According to a document signed by George Washington, the USA was not founded on Christian principles. I found nothing, other than one company selling documents purported to relate to the cited case. No news stories, no court documents, nothing! I did find a Florida case of Maximo Gomez suing. The diagram showing found online is a "perpetual motion" machine that would not be the cause of any execution attempt, in my opinion.

[@sethtenrec]

The OP is obviously a nut job.

[@maryarney1350]

Water powered engines have been "silenced" since I was a kid. I remember a guy who had built a fully functioning car that ran on water in the late 70s on a TV show. He could breathe the exhaust and the water that condensed in the tail pipe was drinkable. I remember being so excited to see that as the diesel fumes and gas fumes made me sick, and still do, but this guy had made a car that was cleaner than anything else at the time. As a kid I did wonder how to collect the condensation so it wouldn't dribble on the roads in winter and cause accidents, but seriously, that was an easily managed issue. Are you that guy?

[@maximonacer5039]

@@maryarney1350 I am…I am the one of Gravity Buoyancy USA…not the one that invented the hydrolysis installed in cars…but simple new systems to pump water at very low energy cost and use the water to store energy in simple water tanks, not batteries that will allow Americans to generate millions of watts of hydroelectric power anywhere, everywhere!

[@sethtenrec]

@@maximonacer5039 < now he’s created another account to “talk” to himself

[@incognito3620]

This was in a time when honor, judgment, integrity for equality was preeminent in this country. A time when we ratified the basis of the Constitution to justify and prove its viability and principles. Sadly, we have moved far from this today. America is moving backwards. The Constitution must be taught and explained in schools. Today. Now. Also the Supreme Court was a very different institution than is has devolved into today. This also illustrate that from 1797 to today evil and discontent have not settled many Articles in our Constitution. There are those who wish to abolish or distort it for their own gain. The founders had an idea of a better more just and equal union. Has taken just 247 years to start to see it unravel into chaos, discontent and malfeasance. And mainly by those we have elected to govern.

[@lynettelabaum3983]

They need to read the constitution and bill of rights in public again broadcasted

[@robertbarnes4666]

a country built on the promise of equality who's people have spent most of their time refusing to adhere to that same promise and it continues till this day

[@Joseph-zd2ru]

Spending Clause in Constitution says Congress controls budget spending.

[@AbdiShibis]

Waa kaa haloowday Bro upload garee Mar kale

[@BrianHolmes]

This is House Speaker Mccarthys outline of Constitutional responsibility.

[@cindybraun371]

Please explain to us section 2, 3, and 4 of the14th ammendment!!

[@JescaML]

This is how you should read section 3 of the 14th amendment No person shall be… -a Senator or Representative in Congress. (Senate or House) -elector of President and Vice-President, (electoral college voters) -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. (This means civil officer must follow the Hatch act of 1939 law and military officers who go through the academy, commander in chief does not apply to the military officer). -as an officer of the United States. (This is listed under the Appointment clause and contains those in the presidential line of succession as they are nominated positions not elected by the people positions) -as a member of any State legislature. Local state house and Senate) -as an executive or judicial officer of any State. (Governor, lt governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General. State Supreme Court) 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. This section was to protect the office of the president from an uprising like what happened during the civil war.

[@JescaML]

For section 2. This is what it says under the Constitution Annotated website which may help With the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment, enslaved persons and their descendants, who formerly counted as three-fifths of a person, would be fully counted in the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives, increasing as well the electoral vote, and there appeared the prospect that the readmitted Southern states would gain a political advantage in Congress when combined with Democrats from the North. Because the South was adamantly opposed to African American suffrage, all the congressmen would be elected by White voters. Many wished to provide for the enfranchisement of African Americans and proposals to this effect were voted on in both the House and the Senate, but only a few Northern states permitted African Americans to vote, and a series of referenda on the question in Northern states revealed substantial White hostility to the proposal. Therefore, a compromise was worked out to effect a reduction in the representation of any state that discriminated against males in the franchise.1 No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate Section 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 With subsequent constitutional amendments adopted and the use of federal coercive powers to enfranchise persons, the section is little more than a historical curiosity.3 However, in Richardson v. Ramirez,4 the Court relied upon the implied approval of disqualification upon conviction of crime to uphold a state law disqualifying convicted felons for the franchise even after the service of their terms. It declined to assess the state interests involved and to evaluate the necessity of the rule, holding rather that because of Section 2 the Equal Protection Clause was simply inapplicable.

[@roxannedoelling8259]

So why are women’s rights to bodily autonomy not upheld with this amendment as well?

[@joeponce6889]

What I never understood is if we are all equal citizens why would we need civil rights laws. Doesn't that separate us.

[@5-1biggiebagextrafries]

I would think the Chinese Exclusion Act and Jim Crow would make it obvious why we need laws to protect minorities.

[@gorgeousfreeman1318]

For the longest time, the founding fathers, whilst opposed to it, did not touch the issue of slavery. It got pushed back over and over and over again. Sadly, evil people exist and we need to ensure there are proper things in place to protect and ensure equal citizens.

[@jordanwardle11]

​@@gorgeousfreeman1318they needed to secure the union first. Then they could go after slavery

[@gorgeousfreeman1318]

@@jordanwardle11 right and that was their logic, but it hit a point where it was impossible without a war

[@podunkest]

John Marshall Harlan had some massive balls to be the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896.

[@grantkohler7612]

So what about sections 2, 3, & 4 ?? Are they not important?

[@michaelsmith3921]

Yeah, I was just thinking, where’s the whole amendment? Nice presentation, but sooo incomplete

[@zz449944]

The 14th Amendment is so very important. Yet is not well known or understood. I recall my 10th grade American History teacher desperately trying to impress upon us the importance of Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board of Education and it seemed to me that somehow the message wasn't getting thru, despite several days in class on the matter.

[@Wyrmwould]

If you get serious about studying Constitutional Law, eventually you will come across the Slaughter House cases. And if you are like me, you will become enraged at how a bad ruling from the Supreme Court can undermine what was supposed to be significant protections in the Constitution. Everyone should know this history and feel the rage that I and others felt.

[@stevemullikin5744]

This was very good but came up short. The last part of the amendment, section 4, was not even addressed.

[@elimgarak7330]

In light of current events, the omission of anything beyond Section 1 seems unfortunate.

[@bonniewilson9709]

Let's look at both the original and yours ..

[@robertvondarth1730]

Are there persons born or naturalized within the United States that are not subject to the jurisdiction?

[@JOKing-ku8jg]

A self-governed breathing man ( in hominem) jurisdiction common law, not in personam jurisdiction (jus)

[@mactastic144]

@@JOKing-ku8jg Sovereign citizens don't exist.

[@misterbuddy1682]

Looks like you missed a few sections, though no one thought they would be important to include them when they made the video

[@juliocesarquiles]

What jurisdiction does the USA government have over the citizens of other countries???

[@gorgeousfreeman1318]

the moment you enter their borders, they have jurisdiction. Unless you are an ambassador (to some extent)

[@ceceliataylor4477]

Well they whoever don't care abt historic they changed their idea differently.

[@mf7482]

I was hoping to see the clause which guarentees that no public debt backed by the us govt can be questioned. So that Congress has to raise the debt ceiling period.

[@mf7482]

@Bob Lawblaw Down payment is how you interpret it. The 14th Amendment is not say down payment. It says what it means the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

[@xizar0rg]

While this does a handsome job of covering the first section of the 14th amendment, there are 4 other sections that warrant investigation.

[@suezbell1]

Fourteenth Amendment then guarantees a "life of the mother" exception to end pregnancy even where abortion is otherwise prohibited.

[@davidreinhart418]

What about the life of the unborn child?

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

@@davidreinhart418 The health and well being of the mother is the first concern, because if the mother dies so will the child !!! DUUUUHHHH !!!!! IF one has to be sacrificed, it has to be the child. as it would save the mother. but if and when the mother dies so will the child if not of the gestational age to sustain life outside the womb !!!!!!

[@rwcowell]

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Your answer is extremely subjective. Not every circumstance if the mother's health is jeopardized during a pregnancy will the baby die also. In the third trimester, a child's life still can be saved if the mother cannot. This has been documented throughout history and practice throughout the world that the baby's life is more important. It's the Mother's obligation to bring life into this world, not take it. But it's a small percentage of disingenuous, narrow-minded sociopaths like you who think the mother's life is more important the baby's life.

[@2loaves388]

​@@wilburfinnigan2142with modern technology the child just about never "has" to be sacrificed. They can simply remove the child without murdering the child

[@eugenepiurkowski5439]

@@davidreinhart418 unborn means not yet born.... no rights. Bible says life begins with a first breath.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

QUESTIONS: Okay, the US Constitution, the highest law here in America, the 14th Amendment say who is a US citizen, with all the privileges or immunities thereof. And other than the age to vote and the age to hold certain Federal public offices, are all other age related laws all across America unconstitutional? No where in the US Constitution is mental capacity a requirement to be able to exercise privileges or immunities here in the USA.

[@scotmark]

Don't forget that you have the right to vote from the moment of conception!

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@scotmark Good point. No real need for the 26th Amendment. The 19th Amendment allows ALL citizens to vote regardless of their sex. (Nothing about age).

[@maryarney1350]

Womb bearers while pregnant in 22 states are not allowed to save their own lives or have any say in that decision. I doubt highly that any womb bearers would be permitted to vote on behalf of a pregnancy because obviously womb bearers are not whole citizens with liberty, freedom, or equal protection under the law. The pregnancy is granted preeminent worth and rights during gestation.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@maryarney1350 An entity in the womb is not an American citizen yet. They have to be born first. As far as the woman is concerned, either she an American citizen (with all the privileges or immunities thereof), or she isn't.

[@scotmark]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Best not to confuse the "Pro-Lifers" with common sense, eh?

[@AdamHoffman-lt7eq]

I'll just keep my State Citizenship. I don't wish to be a franchisee of the US inc.

[@blkcobra03]

Excellent choice. Not sure if many people understand that.

[@TeamSherry]

Can a person convicted of espionage and or crimes against the U.S. be allowed to run for public office?

[@randal_gibbons]

Yes, but we're supposed to be smart enough not to vote for them.

[@cynthiarowley719]

John Marshall Harland, where are his statues?

[@GRDwashere]

We need Harlan or someone of his caliber now more than ever.... prehaps 3 or 4 Harlans.

[@robertodebeers2551]

What about the clause that says the debts of the United States will be paid? It's in the news a lot lately.

[@rachelraccoon5565]

That's how/why I clicked on this video.

[@robertodebeers2551]

@@rachelraccoon5565 Me, too.

[@divinerespect309]

Shall not only by color, Also Education, Financial within holds further stagnation upon individuals qualifications tested.

[@blairchristensen1965]

Horrible decision in Wong Kim Ark, BTW. Ignored the clear requisite cited in the 14th Amendment "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". International law historically and even today says that birthright citizenship applies to the nationality of one's parents - not where the person was born. Except in the United States because of this case. Slaughter-House is also garbage precedent: the Ninth and Tenth Amendments recognize the potential existence of rights not explicitly covered by prior Amendments and reserved protection of those rights to the States. Plessy v Ferguson was yet another horrendous decision - fortunately one SCOTUS has reversed.

[@blkcobra03]

People don't understand SCOTUS=9 black robed TYRANTS.

[@nuqwestr]

With Ferguson, odd that the "Woke" want to go back to "Separate but Equal" in many areas of our civil life. Ironic to say the least.

[@mryardiedescendant]

“Justice Gray concluded that every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, *no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.* Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

[@YosenBMamma]

*Umm, umm, umm, and what does the 14th Amendment have to do with the debt limit?*

[@pshaw8406]

I can't understand what any of this has to do with national debt.

[@GermanSanchez-df6ys]

The print is too small hard to read!.

[@jabberjaw1067]

What about section 4. We don't owe debt that was involve in an insurrection. Sounds like the Fed Reserve to me.

[@user-bs9so6qs7q]

It wasn't an Insurrection! It was an Uprising. Check the definitions. The word Uprising fits perfectly with what happened.

[@richardpaulissen1171]

Maybe I missed it but I think the most important aspect of the fourteenth amendment was drawn out by Gitlow versus New York. Without this ruling, none of the other amendments really matter to individuals. It basically gave all of us our. Constitutional rights . People don't realize that before this case it was not clear that the constitution applied to a state government's relationships individual citizens as well as the federal government. The fourteenth amendment was the only amendment that specially stated individual constitutional rights had supremacy over state laws. Gitlow versus New York did guarantee freedom of press it also allowed later conservative Justices to wipe out gun control measures by ignoring half the words in the second amendment and then forcing all states to go along.🎉

[@CleverMonkeyArt]

Seems to me that the 14th Amendment can play a role in engaging with the current conflict over abortion. If I recall correctly, the Roe Decision was based, at least in part, on the fact that the Court could not find anywhere in the Constitution a definition for "person". The 14th clearly acknowledges that a "person" first of all is a citizen at birth (as well as by inference a human being) if born in the US or naturalized, with all the rights and privileges that come with be a post-natal person and citizen. So, among other things, to take the life of even a one-day-old baby would be counted as murder (due to the right to life clause). But nowhere in the body of the Constitution or amendments is any clear definition of "person" stated, when or how one exists. Any and all statements that use the term clearly are referring to adults, not even children, much less pre-birth humans. Again, please allow me the relative unfamiliarity with the actual text of Dobbs, but if I have heard correctly, the Dobbs Decision used the same reasoning as Roe to come to the opposite conclusion - that absent any clear statement that can be found in the 14th or elsewhere, the decision about the fate of an unborn human being is rightfully left to the states. But I strenuously disagree, since what the nature of a "person", aka "human being", is is central to what it means to be a member of the human race, an American citizen, a "man" (as in "all men are created equal"), to have rights, etc. I would hope that Jefferson or Madison or even Rousseau might have left a hint. But to leave the decision up to the respective states is to more or less declare or accept that people in one state can exist at one stage of development and that people in another state do not exist until later, etc. Not just nonsense, but cynical. Like it or not, the Constitution is not a religious document; it is a legal one. You can't use it to impose a specifically religious doctrine or practice on the whole nation. There must be some way to settle this - does a person exist at birth, at viability, at conception (due to unique DNA, for instance)? Does the woman retain sole right over her medical condition without limit, including pregnancy?

[@mfv2024]

Thank you for this question. If women are citizens, why do they not have full rights and privileges including equal protection?

[@maryarney1350]

Because women are not full citizens under the law. That is the reason why the Women's Equality Act has not been ratified by congress or any president for 100 years. If we were actually seen as full and equal citizens, there would be a huge shift in culture, social expectations, and politics in this country. Any restrictions on womb bearers is nothing more than enslavement to the pregnancy via political proxy. The civil rights of the womb bearer are removed and the pregnancy is granted preeminent worth and rights.

[@blkcobra03]

@@mfv2024 Citizens don't have rights! They have benefits and privileges from the DADDY govt. Also, 14th Amendment/US citizens is a Congress created legal FICTION/STRAWMAN/EN LEGIS.

[@rachelraccoon5565]

I've been saying this for years.

[@randus7053]

@@mfv2024 Some women don't want equal rights and responsibilities, because that also means potentially going to war.

[@5050johnsmith]

But no lawyer has answeared the question what will or can the us supreme court do if the municipal court says go kick rocks

[@josephwilliammarek9566]

Wait a minute! I watched this whole thing to hear about the U.S. paying its bills, and you didn't cover it at all.

[@FrankJohnson-hu9bh]

This is the first u tube video on this topic, I have run across sinceI used to watch ronald k taylor. He told the truth, and enjoyed coffee at the same place.....and then he had a string of strokes. ........did they find him? mix up your routine folks.

[@fsm12385]

Redicilous that citizans were separated ! So Bad ! Should have been stopped instantly with no history period ! Sad !

[@scotmark]

I'd like to be segregated from racists. 😼

[@carlkuss]

Life, property and liberty may not be alienated without due process. Also the Constitution tells us that treaties made by the U.S. are to be regarded as the highest law of the land. The U.S. subscribes to the U.N. charter on human rights. Due process refers to a criterion of Natural Law, or else it is a meaningless term. The defense of life HAS TO start with the unborn, or else it is meaningless. Tos say this does not take away the rights of women. To respect the unborn is to respect women. But to get this right is going to take a deep renewal of our thinking. It does not mean a return to patriacrchy.

[@tjay8383]

Dred Scott case decided that slaves were not citizens and thus not entitled to constitutional rights of citizenship for his daughter. Dred Scott went to court for his daughter that was born in a free state.

[@josephheston9238]

And it's still the most ignored amendment.

[@randus7053]

False, that would be the 10th.

[@josephheston9238]

@@randus7053 O.K. then the most violated.

[@williamf3988]

Interesting how things have come full circle. African Americans now want separate but equal

[@tjay8383]

14th amendment did not cancel the naturalization act, proving it was not written for immigrants. Even after Wong Kim case , the Naturalization act is still on the books.

[@douglaslewis866]

One aspect of his explanation left out was that the amendment was designed to protect slaves who were born in the U.S from having their citizenship revoke. There is an argument that has been made that it was not intended to be applied to any person who is born on U.S. soil. It strange that the Chief justices cited did were aware of this major factor. The source for the distinction can be found in the debates over the amendment. However, as with much documentation much has been altered or open to such wild interpretation one cannot locate the facts. I mean common sense would say that letting anyone, any time by just being born in the U.S. regardless of the circumstances would be tough for a country to handle all the problems that may occur. For example, the hotels in L.A. which have now been busted, that where woman from China were sent over to the U.S. through agencies for a fee to have their children. however, it ahs been allowed t stand for so long that it cannot be challenged. There have been attempts, but those who challenge it were met with the term Racist.

[@user-fn7pm1dd8u]

Here’s some things the corrupt National Constitution Center aren’t going to tell you! It should answer some of your questions. Emmerich de Vattel “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature-Applied to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” (1758) - “The natural-born, or native citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”. Benjamin Franklin in his letter to Charles W.F. Dumas (1775) - “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult The Law of Nations. [It] has been continually in the hands of members of our congress, now sitting.”. David Ramsay’s “A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character & Privileges of a Citizen of the United States” (1789, the nation’s top historian, the year we began operating under the Constitution) - “…citizenship as a natural right belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”. Chief Justice John Marshall, as recorded in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) - “Vattel,…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says,…the natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”. Supreme Court Chief Justice Melvin Fuller who administered the oath to 5 Presidents (I can’t recall the year!?) - “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, it is UNREASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT “natural born citizen” APPLIED TO EVERYBODY born within the GEOGRAPHICAL TRACT known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances-…THE CHILDREN OF FOREIGNERS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY.”. John Bingham, the so-called “Father of the 14th Amendment”, as recorded in the Congressional Globe of the 39th Congress, 1st Session, during the legislation of the amendment (1866) - “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 the Constitution itself, a natural born Citizen.” Now keep in mind with the next one that historically the 14th Amendment was only for the freed slaves and 1866 is long before the corruption came in 1898 with Kim Ark. Even the freed slaves who mostly has been born on our soil, were only treated as citizens and not natural born Citizen. But their children after the fact could be NBC’s! Also keep in mind that this is only regarding citizens and not natural born Citizens of which the 14th intentionally does not mention!! Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the amendment during its legislation (1866) - “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This WILL NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of foreign ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”. Slaughter-House Cases (1872) - “The phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of…citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”. Elk v Wilkins (1884) - “…children of aliens,…must necessarily remain subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.”. Now with this in particular it is important to point out that women did not have independent citizenship until 1922 and were considered joint citizens through family or marriage. Ever since both parents have to be independent citizens. This is also again, before the corruption that began with Kim Ark in 1898. George Collins, Secretary of the American Bar Association (1884) - “The rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child…is founded in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy as stated by [Emmerich] Vattel:”By law of nature alone children follow the conditions of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.”. “Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is ESSENTIAL in order that a person be a native or a natural born Citizen of the U.S., that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof.”.

[@au7-721]

Can you just imagine how bad our country would be now if these laws had not been passed?

[@DCUPtoejuice]

you skipped article 5 :(

[@donaldrayprine5153]

1866 civil rights act,, then the 14 th Amendment

[@user-tv9om2qo8x]

What about States Rights? States should have jurisdiction by themselves and not be ruled over by the Feds

[@jacewoods411]

Netflix Documentary Amend explains in totality with Will and some of his friends and scholars and activists

[@Harlemworldboy]

Reparations for Foundational Black Americans

[@majcorbin]

KILROY corbin WAS HERE ( *1952-PRESENT) MAKE 1984 FICTION AGAIN

[@randal_gibbons]

It's unfortunate that the governor of Arkansas has repealed desegregation orders that the federal government imposed on them. That doesn't make segregation legal but it makes you wonder what their end game is.

[@jamesvas6986]

y’all don’t forget that back then, during the civil war times, the republicans were ideologically liberal and the southern democrats were ideologically conservative.

[@carolynhoover9444]

Yes. And, when in 1964, the law was to endure equality, the then southern democrats joined the northern Republicans who were the conservatives. Southern democrats were never liberals.

[@IRun4Ultra]

The 14th Amendment was not ratified. Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646)

[@BobSmith-kd4oc]

I like your due diligence in posting the truth thank you

[@blkcobra03]

And the 16th Amendment doesn't apply to those born in the Constitutional Republic... ie the States (California, Texas, etc)

[@markdavis8888]

So many amendments needed to mitigate the despicable values of the southern states.