"The 14th Amendment…was a promise to the people of this country of limited government and respect for individual rights."

The Institute for Justice has just released a great new video on the history and meaning of the 14th Amendment, focusing particularly on how it relates to limited government and individual rights. Check it out below. And for more on the topic, take a look at Reason's archive of 14th Amendment-related writing.

Comments

[kilroy]

While we're posting videos:

New Gary Johnson campaign video

[Occupy Reason]

We are the 99&.

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.

~Adam Smith
Wealth of Nations

[Ballchinian]

Shut the fuck up, White Injun.

[WTF]

I see White Idiot has been shitting all over every fucking thread lately.

[Zeb]

Yeah. I don't know why so many people have such a hard time not responding to him. It's always the same shit.

[Mr. FIFY]

Amazing how much shit he can make, considering he can't possibly be hunting and gathering nearly enough bulk to produce it...

[Libertymike]

Remember the Slaughterhouse cases!

[Libertymike]

The 14th amendment was designed so that the right of one person to exclude another from his place of business trumped the right of the excluded to compel his admission to the exlcuder's place of business.

Affirmative action, coerced accomodation, quotas and set asides were not the objectives of Mr. Bingham.

[Tony]

Pretty sure the 14th was about establishing full legal personhood for black slaves and their descendants.

[Syd Henderson]

Although one of the nice things about it is that it didn't limit itself to the slaves. When I was reading the debates on the 14th there was a Senator from Oregon who was all for protecting the slaves but was really worried that someone might think to apply the amendment to the Chinese.

[pmains]

Or the Irish!

[Blazing Saddles]

Alright, we'll welcome the coloreds and the chinks, but we don't want the Irish!

(crowd): NO!

[Troy]

No, god damn it.... it's ....

"All right, we'll give land to the niggers and the chinks, but we don't the Irish."

Don't PC my Mel Brooks please.

[Libertymike]

Tony, you are wrong. First, read the words of the amendment. The text is not limited to making things nice for black people.

Second, read the debates. Read the writings and private correspondence of folks like John Bingham. The second group of founders as Professor Amar refers to them, were primarily concerned with making the decalogue applicable to the states and ensuring that the exercise of one's natural rights trumped state laws which interferred with the same.

[Tony]

If they're natural why do we need to write them down?

Agreed that it doesn't just apply to black people. Pretty sure that among the rights incorporated is not the right to racially discriminate in a place of business that caters to the public.

[A Serious Man]

"If they're natural why do we need to write them down?"

Because slavers like you would take them away? Duh.

And no, my right to own property has nothing to do with your right not to be treated differently by the GOVERNMENT. Nowhere in the 14th are private establishments mentioned nor is there anything in common law that says I have to associate with someone I don't want too just because I own a business.

[The Heresiarch]

Where is that in the textual history of the amendment?

[Libertymike]

Tony, they were outraged at southern local ordinances and state laws which made it a crime to publish and sell pamphlets calling for an end to slavery as well as the black codes passed by northern cities and states.

The reconstruction republicans were also outraged by the veritable avalanche of laws enacted by all state legislatures which infringed upon the liberty of the individual.

Do you think that public accomodation was debated by the 39th Congress? Do you think that Messrs. Bingham, Trumball et al were concerned with whom a purely private business (i.e., a business which does not rent seek or otherwise get government goodies) chose to do business? If you got the goods, show me.

Furthermore, the amendment was targeted at GOVERNMENT, not individuals.

You know that racism thy name is government. Racism is a government law or policy based upon race. That is the historic conception and understanding of racism.

If you are Tom Brady, (before, during and after Gizelle) and you prefer not to have carnal knowledge with Jennifer Hudson, Esther Rolle, S. Epartha Merkerson, Aretha Franklin or Queen the size of Latvia, you are not racist.

[Libertymike]

It is so important to win the language battle.

Racism is not a handsome white guy choosing to date only fetching ivory babes; nor is it racism for the handsome white guy to abstain from associating with the likes of Shirley from That's My Mama.

Racism is the exclusive province of government laws or policies based upon race.

[Tony]

Okay, I agree that it's more fruitful to discuss racism in terms of real-world actions (such as laws) rather than what's going on inside someone's head.

But you treat government as if it's some external force and not a reflection of the will of the people. Racist laws don't stick around very long when they are contrary to the will of the people. If the South were capable of repealing its racist laws on its own, it wouldn't have needed the federal government to force it to join modernity and treat its citizens slightly more equally.

There is an important difference between dating and operating a business that serves the public. If racism is a problem in your community and the effect of lots of individual business's choices is that you can't participate in the commerce of your community, then your freedom and equality are severely diminished.

Maybe ideally people should be free to discriminate, but ideally there wouldn't be pervasive racism in one's community. The South should have stopped making the case for federal intervention by demonstrating that there's some value to letting them maintain their autonomy.

Government cannot be neutral on an issue such as pervasive racism. It either actively tolerates it or it does something about it.

[Ballchinian]

If racism is a problem in your community and the effect of lots of individual business's choices is that you can't participate in the commerce of your community, then your freedom and equality are severely diminished.

And that's too goddamn bad. You're entitled to equality before the law. You're not entitled to equal treatment from private citizens.

[Mr. FIFY]

Trying to figure out why Tony gives a shit about Constitutional amendments, when the whole thing is just an impediment for government to do whatever the fuck it wants...

[Libertymike]

Tony, lest you forget, I have often argued that the saloon keeper who refuses to serve black people has no right to expect you and me to finance his racial discrimination policies.

You have probably read the posts from the likes of Rev. Blue Moon and others who have assailed me by illogically claiming that I am making a "roadz" argument. They know that such asseverations are intellectual clap-trap but they make them anyways.

It is perfectly consistent to (a) oppose state mandated association and (b) state mandated dis-association. The principle remains the same, namely, that the state has no business stamping its imprimatur upon the racial association practices of folks.

Tony, the fact is that sometines you and me get to the same place, albeit from slightly different means. I just do not understand why a person conducting a business would refuse to do business with people of another race. In almost all types of businesses (not every, I grant you), the owner will be hurt. Its just not good business.

Most people, including white business owners in the segregated, pre-1964 south, want to do business with anybody who can help their business. This usually means that one does not refuse the patronage of others who will put money in their pockets.

[duke]

You all know him as Joe the Policman on the What's Going Down episode of That's My Mama.

[Mr. FIFY]

Hey, Tony... what about a black bar owner who doesn't want to serve white folks?

You okay with that?

[Fist of Etiquette]

The United States Supreme Court, today as in the past, and like every other human institution, is populated with idiots.

[Dunbar's Number]

No, people aren't stupid.

Mass society of city-lyzation is stupid.

Why?

Dunber's number.

Humans have a bio-neurological limit of how many stable social relationships one can maintain.

Human's are not well-adapted to mass society, and never will be.

Humans are evolutionarily adapted to Non-State band and tribal life.

[Libertymike]

Is it Dunbar's number?

Or is it Dunber's number?

Which is it?

[Dunbar's Number]

[Are we for Liam Neeson or not?]

What can we say about an Irish actor that has inexplicably gone from playing dramatic roles to action heroes? Typically the process is reveresed as actors age, and yet Neeson played Oskar Schindler and Jean ValJean in his 40s and now plays action heros in movies like Taken and Unknown in his late 50s.

[Mainer]

And if there's one thing you learn in the last 20 minutes of Taken, you really really don't want to mess with Neeson's daughter. You really don't.

[A Serious Man]

He's going to be in the new movie based on the game Battleship as a US Navy captain. Also, Brooklyn Decker plays his daughter. What more can one man want? He's going to get paid a lot of money to glower into the camera "You sunk my battleship!"

[Mr. FIFY]

Now, we see the White Idiot using a piss-poor distraction technique...

[cynical]

You'll feel like an idiot when we have monkeysphere-augmenting tech in a few decades. Well, you would, if you weren't such an idiot.

[Jesus is Returning too]

Just don't come knocking on my door with your evangelical faith in techno-triumphalism, which is the USA's modern Cargo Cult and just as stupid.

[A Serious Man]

I always thought the distinction between government enforced Jim Crow laws and simply not welcoming colored people into your private business was obvious. How exactly can the language of the 14th in any way justify laws that prohibit people from having autonomy over their property?

[Mr. FIFY]

Because we don't really own property - it's all owned by Tony's Beloved Mega-State.

[bernieyeball]

USCon Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The video did not include the first 13 words of the Amendment.

[cynical]

It was informative but not legally active.

[jason]

MoveOn + homeless + pizza = OccupyWallStreet

[Houston6]

The 14th Amendment being under-ratified ... always escapes notice here somehow.

It is an illegal amendment.

No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868.

There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it FAILED ratification.

Congress simply ignored the inadequate state ratification vote count-- and summarily declared the Constitution 'amended'.

It's 100% true... just Google it.

The official and historical record of this failed ratification is detailed & absolutely undisputed -- attested to by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians.

[Libertymike]

Just like the 16th?

[Tony]

28 states had ratified it by the time it was certified by Seward on July 20, 1868. 2 additional states ratified it before July 28, when it became unconditionally certified. The rest of the 37 eventually ratified it (by 2003).

[Syd Henderson]

Either Houston6 doesn't count the governments of the former Confederate states as being legitimate or he doesn't believe a state can approve an amendment it previously rejected (while believing it can reject an amendment it previously approved).

I'm curious. Have any of the 13 states admitted to the union since 1868 approved the amendment? I've only seen approvals from the 37 states around in 1868.

[Patriot1776]

Your absolutly right Houston6, It was never ratified legally. Also the false idea that it was meant to make the bill of rights aply to all the States as well is wrong.

http://www.foundersrevolution......ified.html

[CE]

So, do you think forcing all the states to respect the Bill of Rights toward their own citizens is a bad thing? Really?

[DesigNate]

Yeah, who needs Due Process or Equal Protection that shit is whack.

[damn root is a blogger]

damon root nestled far far away from illegal immigrants in his humble abode...setting an example! thanks damon. can't relate, but either can you.

[Mr. FIFY]

Is there a point to this, White Idiot?

[Keefer]

{TONY, you missed a few facts}:

-

- Outside the South, six States -- New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland ? failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

- In the South, ten States -- Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana -- by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.

- Thus, a total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."

- Congress -- which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate -- did not even lawfully enact the resolution of submission for the 14th Amendment's ratification process.

- The Southern States, which had rejected the 14th amendment, were heavily coerced by Congress to instead ratify it. In 1867 Congress imposed a law (over President Johnson's veto)-- declaring that Southern States could never have their seats in either the Senate or House ... unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment".

- The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey were so shocked at this Congressional tyranny -- that they formally rescinded their earlier ratification of the 14th.

- The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 also rescinded its previous ratification of the 14th -- formally stating that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

[Daniel]

Keefer,
Can you provide some references as I'd like to read them.

[Patriot1776]

Sources for Keefers comments:

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

http://www.14th-amendment.com/page_frame.htm

[AdamJ]

Whether it was legally ratified or not ignores the point that the SCOTUS is an entirely egotistic body. When one writes a constitution of the United States of America that delineates rights that shall not be infringed upon and all of these united states ratify this constitution, they are implying that they shall also not infringe upon these rights. Yet the courts instead gave carte blanche to the states. Even worse, once the 14th was included in the text, so called "intelligent" men and women have been arguing under due process for a hundred years instead of just admitting that some asshole(s) who's been dead for a really long time was wrong in interpreting the slaughter house case. Against all logic and plain literacy, they've been continuing this farce. Precedent is bullshit. Only takes one bad apple to change its course for ages to come. I for one don't believe it's that hard to read the constitution. Maybe if we could just strike down commerce and general welfare clauses...

[Embarassed to be a libertarian]

God...this thread is exactly why people dislike libertarians.

The 14th Amendment is one of the most important liberty preserving amendments. I feel like puking every time I see a Ron Paul fan cheer the idiotic and absurd notion that we'd be far better of with the bill of rights applying purely to Washington D.C. and states choosing to recognize only the liberties they want to recognize. Basically you'll get this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pk8IxqYF0E

The liberty movement doesn't need neo-confederatism and message board attorneys claiming to know more about the law than real attorneys and legal scholars at the IJ.

[Zack]

Yeah, if only DC could preserve liberty even further, by deciding that the Bill of Rights applies to even more countries. The state of Canada seems like the logical place to start, but eventually we can "preserve liberty" everywhere around the globe!

If the the U.S. federal government has to recognize the restrictions placed upon it, then why shouldn't Canada, Mexico, South Carolina, Florida, Iraq, etc. also have to recognize the restrictions placed upon... the U.S. federal government... uh wait

[Fundamental Rights R 4 Chumps!]

So I take you don't believe in fundamental rights? The Declaration of Independence was a pile of bull too then, correct? Life, liberty and property...but only as determined by each individual state's tyrannical laws.

Slavery? Well if a state wants to leave the union they can do whatever they want, plus their laws said it's ok and state laws are always ok. Segregation? As a libertarian it would be statist of me to tell them to stop it. Why don't black people just move to states that treat them better?

Like the right to bear arms, free speech, property rights, the right to association, the right to own your own body? Well you can giiiit out! Move to D.C. if you want actual rights. We don't like your kind round these parts by gum! Thomas Jefferson clearly wanted indepedence from England so individual states could determine how to oppress their people, not some hoity toity British guy.

[Canada Goose Womens Chilliwack]

I've been working on art/science projects for about ten years now, and I still find that the intersection of art and science is one of the most exciting places to be thinking and working. After years of working as a producer,Canada Goose Outlet, I decided I also wanted to be able to break new ground in art/science collaboration as a researcher. As a PhD student, I'm getting the opportunity not only to do create this work, but to think and write deeply about the process and implications of the relationship between art and science.

I have been adamant about keeping the role of the dance as an art form prominent. So many science/art collaborations use the art as vehicle to explain science concepts, to make the science more accessible and more 'fun'. That is a fine way to use the art, but it is important to me to increase education and appreciation for art ? dance specifically, as it stands on its own. Modern dance is often a less-understood Canada Goose Kids Parka art form, so it was important to me to make the role of dance in this collaboration increase the of the understanding of dance. I wanted a production that helped audiences understand my creative process of making dances, as one example of the many ways choreographers construct performances for the stage.

[Daniel]

30 seconds in and it's all evil Southern folks...freed slaves were not always welcomed into the idyllic utopia north of the Ohio River. Many northerners were just as bigoted as any in the south.
For example, Indiana and Illinois constitutionally barred slavery, the went to great efforts to discourage black immigration to include mandating any moving to the states provide documentation that they are free and pay a bond to assure their 'good behavior'.
Most Midwest states adopted their own Black Codes because, while they may have been against slavery, few were interested in integrating.

[Daniel]

Separately, the idea that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence nullified slavery is in opposition to the reality that most of the Framers did hold slaves.
Also, the Constitution is a document to define the limited powers of the Federal government only, hence the 10th Am. The states were free to govern according to their citizens' desires.

[Daniel]

I'm commenting as I watch this, hence the sequential comments....

John Bingham was incorrect to think that the BoR not applying to the states was a 'hole in the Constitution'.
By design, the states were to have primacy over the central or Federal government in domestic matters. It was never intended by the Framers for the Federal government to have authority over the states.
This video presents an excellent history of the erosion of states powers and incremental expansion of federal powers.
I'm a little surprised that a contributor to Reason would call this 'excellent' as it demonstrates an ignorance of the intent of the Constitution.
Arguably, the 14th and 17th Amendments to Constitution (along with the bastardization of the Commerce Clause in Art. 1 Sect 8) set in motion the expansion of federal powers that have put us in the position we are now with regards to individual and state rights.

[Patriot1776]

Daniel, I am glad to see your point of view on here. I cannot stand this revision of history crap. I have just lost alot of respect for reason.com just for publishing this misinterpretation of history.

[AdamJ]

But the bill of rights outlines many rights that individuals hold (inalienably), not state or fed gov't. If these rights are inalienable, then they cannot be violated by the feds or the states.

[Patriot1776]

True, but remember the States ALREADY had these same protections in their State constitutions. Which is why they wanted to make sure the federal Government could not overrule them on these matters, and take over the decisions of the people of the States. The bill of Rights was meant to re-iterate the sovereignty of the States, and keep the Feds from interfering or over-ruling them. They had just a few years earlier gained their independence. They were not about to give up the right to govern themselves to another central authority. Which is why the extreme limitations on the new government. When we let the SCOTUS "incorporate" the Bill of Rights via this false interpretation of the 14th, we are handing over the power to determine our rights to the will of 9 Judges. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. Now that McDonald vs. Chicago Has "incorporated" the 2nd amendment to apply to the State as well as the Federal governments The decision of what the Second amendment actually means is up to the SCOTUS. If a future Congress bans all guns exept for a .22 cal. (not out of the realm of reality given how bad some want to take away our guns) Then a future SCOTUS can rule it constituional, because the fundamental right to self protection can be practiced without shotguns, larger weapons, etc. When your State, tries to stand up for you they can now say sorry we incorporated that....we decide. You gave that right up, remember.....you even cheered that decision back in 2010. We should NEVER give up the power to enforce our rights to a central authority.....it always ends bad. Thats why the founders didn't create expansive powers for the new government. They understood that this is where it leads.

[Daniel]

Patriot1776,
Thank you.

Adam,
The discussion of inalienable rights is separate from what the Constitution is and isn't. It is specifically a document that defines the powers of the federal government; nothing more.
The BoR were only added to the Constitution at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists believed that by defining the limited powers of the federal government, there was no need to list specific rights for protection.
The Anti-Federalists viewed the Constitution as flawed with great potential for abuse through legislation and passage of amendments. They insisted that certain specific rights be defined as protected.

[Daniel]

Sorry Adam, to more fully respond to your post:
The BoR were specify the rights that the federal government could not restrict as these would be rights and freedoms a tyrannical government would need limit before securing certain power.
The Framers greatly distrusted strong central governments.
State government had a much smaller sphere of influence limited by their borders. If a population did not like the actions of their state leaders and were unable to vote them out, they could leave the state for one that they found more agreeable.

[Corey]

These comments are truly embarrassing. When I see "libertarians" arguing for states' rights in the context of the Black Codes, I suddenly have to take seriously the idea of white privilege. The state governments were trampling the rights of Freedmen in a manner that ought to shock the conscience of anyone who professes to love liberty. The 14th Amendment gave the federal government the ability to protect the individual rights of citizens from the state governments.

The 14th Amendment stands for the proposition that there are certain rights which the state governments must recognize. As a libertarian, I don't see a problem. Now, from a structural point of view, I can see how giving the federal government a sort of veto power over the states would tend to shift the balance of power too far. But it seems to me that the answer is to give the states a similar veto power over the federal government.

[Patriot1776]

Corey, I agree that it would be a good answer to give the States a similar veto power over the Federal Government. I have said that many times. Don't get me wrong, I am just tired of the revision of history. We have the situation we have and we need to deal with it. But how can we have real solutions when people don't understand the history, and root of the problems. I don't want to go back in time, I want to understand what happened so we can identify the mistakes and prevent them in the future. Revisionist history tends to give a false sense that everything is working fine.

[Patriot1776]

I would like to see an amendment giving the States the ability, once every year or two, to overturn federal laws, and court decisions, if a majority of States consider them to be unconstituional, or overburdonsome.

[babygirl]

buy best cigarettes
cheap marlboro cigarettes

[babygirl]

marlboro cigarettes
menthol cigarettes

[okok]

Brand timberland roll top are popuplar by the outdoor working or activities persons,as we know that timberland custom boots has many styles online sale,here timberland sandals are most girls favorite shoes,timberland classic boots makes people more convenient walking,timberland chukka has been proved the most good quality in the footwear area,and in winter which is warm enough for us to wear,and which is easy to match different jeans.
http://www.timberlandbootsvip.co.uk
http://www.timberlandbootsvip.co.uk

[rock crusher]

The Anti-Federalists viewed the Constitution as flawed with great potential for abuse through legislation and passage of amendments. They insisted that certain specific rights be defined as protected.
The 14th Amendment stands for the proposition that there are certain rights which the state governments must recognize. As a libertarian, I don't see a problem. Now, from a structural point of view, I can see how giving the federal government a sort of veto power over the states would tend to shift the balance of power too far. But it seems to me that the answer is to give the states a similar veto power over the federal government.

[ball mill]

Ball Mill is mainly used to grind materials in mineral, cement, refractory, chemical industry, etc. Ball Mill has dry and wet ways.Ball mill is the main equipment of the grinding system. Productive grinding system is multi-displinary effort of mechanical design,materials,metallurgy,process design and instrumentation applications.

[fine crusher]

Fine Crusher has many advantages, like reliable performance, easy structure, convenient maintenance, big capacity, long life hammer. It is widely used in granite, basalt, limestone, river gravel, cement clinker, quartz, iron ore, bauxite, etc. It is also used in road, railway, water conservancy, airport, construction, cement, refractories, metallurgy, etc.

[mineral process equipment]

The 14th Amendment stands for the proposition that there are certain rights which the state governments must recognize. As a libertarian, I don't see a problem. Now, from a structural point of view, I can see how giving the federal government a sort of veto power over the states would tend to shift the balance of power too far. But it seems to me that the answer is to give the states a similar veto power over the federal government.

[grinding plant]

I would like to see an amendment giving the States the ability, once every year or two, to overturn federal laws, and court decisions, if a majority of States consider them to be unconstituional, or overburdonsome.

[PEVjaw crusher]

The 14th Amendment stands for the proposition that there are certain rights which the state governments must recognize. As a libertarian, I don't see a problem.

[myfriend]

Nice article.

[myfriend]

Nice article.

[sam smith]

Yeah, above all, it's a good news.

[han]

respect everyone's rights