Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish - Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Ushbu maqola qismidir bir qator ustida
Konstitutsiyasi Qo'shma Shtatlar
Muqaddima va maqolalar
Preambula Men II III IV V VI VII
Konstitutsiyaga kiritilgan o'zgartirishlar
Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi: Men II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Tasdiqlanmagan o'zgartirishlar: Kongress taqsimoti Asilzodalik unvonlari Korvin Bolalar mehnati Teng huquqlar D.C.ning ovoz berish huquqlari
Tarix
Tasdiqlash va tasdiqlash muddatlari Konventsiya Imzo Federalizm Respublikachilik
To'liq matn
Muqaddima va maqolalar I – VII I-X tuzatishlar XI-XXVII tuzatishlar Tasdiqlanmagan o'zgartirishlar
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari portali  Qonun portali  Siyosat portali Vikipediya kitobi

The O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish (XIV o'zgartirish) uchun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasi biri sifatida 1868 yil 9-iyulda qabul qilingan Qayta qurishga tuzatishlar. Shubhasiz, eng izchil tuzatishlardan biri bo'lib, u fuqarolik huquqlari va qonun bo'yicha teng himoyani nazarda tutadi va tegishli masalalarga javoban taklif qilingan. sobiq qullar quyidagilarga rioya qilish Amerika fuqarolar urushi. Tuzatish, ayniqsa, mag'lub bo'lgan davlatlar tomonidan qattiq tanqid qilindi Konfederatsiya Kongressda o'z vakolatlarini tiklash uchun uni tasdiqlashga majbur bo'lgan. Tuzatish, xususan uning birinchi qismi, Konstitutsiyaning eng munozarali qismlaridan biri bo'lib, muhim belgi uchun asos yaratmoqda Oliy sud kabi qarorlar Brown va Ta'lim kengashi (1954) irqiy ajratish to'g'risida, Roe Vadega qarshi (1973) abort bilan bog'liq, Bush va Gor (2000) ga tegishli 2000 yilgi prezident saylovi va Obergefell va Xodjes (2015) bir jinsli nikoh to'g'risida. Tuzatish barcha davlat va mahalliy amaldorlarning, shuningdek, ularning amallarini cheklaydi aktyorlik bunday mansabdor shaxslar nomidan.

Tuzatishning birinchi bo'limi bir nechta bandlarni o'z ichiga oladi: Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi band, Imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar moddasi, Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band va Teng himoya qilish moddasi. Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi moddada fuqarolikning keng ta'rifi berilgan bo'lib, Oliy sud qarorini bekor qiladi Dred Skott va Sandford (1857), amerikaliklar afrikalik qullardan kelib chiqqan deb AQShning fuqarosi bo'lolmaydi deb hisoblagan. Beri So'yish uyi holatlari (1873), Imtiyozlar yoki Immunitetlar moddasi juda oz deb talqin qilingan.

Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band davlat va mahalliy hokimiyat organlariga odamlarni adolatli tartibsiz hayotdan, erkinlikdan yoki mulkdan mahrum qilishni taqiqlaydi. Oliy sud ushbu moddaning aksariyat qismini o'z ichiga olgan deb qaror qildi Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi kabi davlatlarga tegishli federal hukumatga bo'lgani kabi, tan olish ham kerak mazmunli va protsessual davlat qonunlari qondirishi kerak bo'lgan talablar. Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi moddada har bir davlat o'z doirasidagi barcha odamlarga, shu jumladan barcha fuqarolarga qonun bo'yicha teng himoya qilishni talab qiladi yurisdiktsiya. Ushbu band turli guruhlarga mansub kishilarga nisbatan mantiqsiz yoki keraksiz kamsitishlarni rad qiluvchi ko'plab qarorlar uchun asos bo'ldi.

O'zgartirishning ikkinchi, uchinchi va to'rtinchi qismlari kamdan-kam hollarda sudga tortiladi. Biroq, ikkinchi bo'limda "isyon yoki boshqa jinoyat" ga murojaat qilish konstitutsiyaviy asos sifatida ishlatilgan jinoyat huquqidan mahrum etish. To'rtinchi bo'lim bo'lib o'tdi Perri Qo'shma Shtatlarga qarshi (1935), oqimni taqiqlash uchun Kongress oldingi Kongress tomonidan qilingan qarz shartnomasini bekor qilishdan. Beshinchi bo'lim Kongressga tuzatish qoidalarini "tegishli qonunchilik" bilan ta'minlashga vakolat beradi; ammo, ostida Boerne shahri va Flores (1997), ushbu vakolatdan Oliy sudning ushbu tuzatishni sharhlagan qaroriga zid kelish uchun foydalanilmasligi mumkin.

Matn

1-bo'lim. Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan yoki fuqaroligi bo'lgan va uning yurisdiksiyasiga bo'ysunadigan barcha shaxslar Qo'shma Shtatlar va ular yashaydigan shtat fuqarolari. Hech bir davlat Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari fuqarolarining imtiyozlari yoki immunitetlarini bekor qiladigan biron bir qonunni amalga oshirmaydi yoki amalga oshirmaydi; shuningdek, biron bir davlat hech kimni qonuniy tartibsiz hayotdan, erkinlikdan yoki mulkdan mahrum qilmaydi; o'z vakolati doirasidagi biron bir shaxsga qonunlarning teng himoyasini inkor etmaslik.

2-bo'lim. Vakillar bir nechta davlatlar orasida o'zlarining raqamlariga ko'ra taqsimlanadi, har bir shtatdagi shaxslarning butun sonini hisobga olgan holda, soliq olinmaydigan hindular bundan mustasno. Ammo Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Prezidenti va vitse-prezidenti uchun saylovchilarni tanlash uchun har qanday saylovda ovoz berish huquqi, Kongressdagi vakillar, bir davlatning ijro etuvchi va sud amaldorlari yoki ularning qonun chiqaruvchi organlari a'zolari biron biridan mahrum bo'lishadi. yigirma bir yoshga to'lgan ushbu shtatning erkak aholisi va Qo'shma Shtatlar fuqarolari yoki biron-bir tarzda qisqartirilganlar, isyon yoki boshqa jinoyatda ishtirok etish bundan mustasno, ularda vakillik asoslari kamaytirilgan nisbatda bunday erkak fuqarolarning soni ushbu davlatdagi yigirma bir yoshdagi erkak fuqarolarning umumiy soniga to'g'ri keladi.

3-bo'lim. Hech kim Kongressda senator yoki vakil, shuningdek prezident va vitse-prezidentning saylovchisi bo'la olmaydi, shuningdek AQSh yoki biron bir shtat nazorati ostida fuqarolik va harbiy xizmatda ishlamaydi, ilgari qasamyod qilgan, a'zo sifatida Kongress yoki Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining ofitseri sifatida yoki biron bir shtat qonun chiqaruvchi organining a'zosi sifatida yoki har qanday shtatning ijro etuvchi yoki sud xodimi sifatida Qo'shma Shtatlar Konstitutsiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun qo'zg'olon yoki isyon bilan shug'ullangan bo'lishi kerak. yoki dushmanlariga yordam yoki tasalli berish. Ammo Kongress har bir palataning uchdan ikki qismining ovozi bilan bunday nogironlikni olib tashlashi mumkin.

4-bo'lim. Qo'shma Shtatlarning qonun bilan vakolat bergan davlat qarzining, shu jumladan isyonni yoki isyonni bostirishda ko'rsatgan xizmatlari uchun pensiya va nafaqalarni to'lash uchun qilingan qarzlarning haqiqiyligi shubha ostiga olinmaydi. Ammo na Qo'shma Shtatlar va na biron bir davlat qo'zg'olon yoki Qo'shma Shtatlarga qarshi qo'zg'olon, yoki biron bir qulni yo'qotish yoki ozod qilish uchun har qanday da'vo uchun yordam uchun qilingan har qanday qarz yoki majburiyatni o'z zimmasiga olmaydi yoki to'lamaydi; ammo bunday barcha qarzlar, majburiyatlar va da'volar noqonuniy va bekor hisoblanadi.

5-bo'lim. Kongress ushbu moddaning qoidalarini tegishli qonun hujjatlariga muvofiq amalga oshirish huquqiga ega.^[1]

Farzandlikka olish

Kongress tomonidan taklif

Oxirgi yillarda Amerika fuqarolar urushi va Qayta qurish davri shundan keyin Kongress 1863 yilgacha ozod qilingan qora tanli sobiq qullarning huquqlarini bir necha bor muhokama qildi Emansipatsiya to'g'risidagi e'lon va 1865 yil O'n uchinchi tuzatish, ikkinchisi rasmiy ravishda qullikni bekor qilgan. Kongress tomonidan o'n uchinchi tuzatish qabul qilinganidan so'ng, ammo Respublikachilar Kongress vakolatxonasida yuzaga keladigan o'sishdan tashvishga tushdi Demokratik - hukmron Janubiy Shtatlar. Chunki ozod qilingan qullarning to'liq aholisi endi Kongress vakolatlarini tayinlagan uchdan uch qismiga emas, balki Kongress vakolatxonasini aniqlash uchun hisobga olinadi. Uch-beshinchi murosaga kelish, Janubiy Shtatlar aholiga asoslangan holda ularning kuchini keskin oshiradi Vakillar palatasi, avvalgi qullarga ovoz berishga ruxsat beriladimi-yo'qligidan qat'iy nazar.^[2][3] Respublikachilar ushbu ustunlikni qoplash uchun yo sobiq qullarning ovozlarini himoya qilish va jalb qilish orqali yoki hech bo'lmaganda ularning huquqlaridan mahrum bo'lish yo'lini izlay boshladilar.^[2][4][5]

1865 yilda Kongress nima bo'lishini qabul qildi 1866 yildagi fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun, irqiga, rangiga yoki qullikning oldingi holatiga yoki majburiy xizmatga bog'liq bo'lmagan holda fuqarolikni kafolatlash. Qonun loyihasida teng imtiyozlar va qonunga kirish huquqi, ularga bevosita hujum qilish kafolatlangan Qora kodlar urushdan keyingi ko'plab davlatlar tomonidan o'tgan. Qora kodekslar sobiq qullarni avvalgi holatiga qaytarishga harakat qilishdi, boshqa narsalar qatori, ularning harakatlanishini cheklash, ularni bir yillik mehnat shartnomalarini tuzishga majbur qilish, o'qotar qurollarga egalik qilishni taqiqlash va sudga berish yoki guvohlik berishdan saqlanish. sud.^[6]

Kongressdagi mo''tadillar tomonidan qonun loyihasini imzolashga qat'iy da'vat etilgan bo'lsa-da, Prezident Endryu Jonson 1866 yil 27 martda veto qo'ydi. O'zining veto xabarida u ushbu choraga e'tiroz bildirdi, chunki bu 36 shtatdan 11tasi Kongressda vakili bo'lmagan paytda ozodlik beruvchilarga fuqarolik bergan va bu afroamerikaliklar foydasiga kamsitilgan. va oq tanlilarga qarshi.^[7][8] Uch hafta o'tgach, Jonsonning vetosi bekor qilindi va bu chora qonun bo'ldi.^[9] Ushbu g'alabaga qaramay, hatto Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunning maqsadlarini qo'llab-quvvatlagan ba'zi respublikachilar ham Kongress ushbu maqsadlarni qonunlarga aylantirish uchun konstitutsiyaviy kuchga ega ekanligiga shubha qila boshladilar.^[10][11] Ushbu tajriba, shuningdek, radikal va mo''tadil respublikachilarni vaqtinchalik siyosiy ko'pchilikka tayanmasdan, qora tanli huquqlar uchun Konstitutsiyaviy kafolatlar izlashga undadi.^[12]

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishga Senat va Palataning ovozi

O'zgartirishlar kiritish uchun yetmishdan ortiq takliflar ishlab chiqildi.^[13] 1865 yil oxirida Qayta qurish bo'yicha qo'shma qo'mita davlat tomonidan irqi asosida ovoz berish huquqiga ega bo'lmagan har qanday fuqaro ushbu davlat vakili sifatida hisobga olinmaydi degan tuzatishni taklif qildi.^[14] Ushbu tuzatish palatadan o'tgan, ammo Senatda koalitsiya tomonidan bloklangan Radikal respublikachilar boshchiligidagi Charlz Sumner, bu taklifni "noto'g'ri bilan murosaga kelish" deb hisoblagan va demokratlar qora tanli huquqlarga qarshi.^[15] Keyin ko'rib chiqish Vakil tomonidan taklif qilingan tuzatishga qaratildi Jon A. Bingem Ogayo shtati, bu Kongressga barcha fuqarolarning "hayoti, erkinligi va mulkining teng himoyasini" ta'minlashga imkon beradi; ushbu taklif uydan o'tolmadi.^[15] 1866 yil aprelda Qo'shma qo'mita Kongressga uchinchi taklifni yubordi, bu birinchi va ikkinchi takliflarning elementlarini birlashtirgan, shuningdek Konfederatsiya qarzi va sobiq Konfederlarning ovoz berish masalalarini hal qilgan puxta kelishilgan kelishuv.^[15] Vakillar palatasi o'tdi Uyning 127-sonli qarori, 39-kongress bir necha hafta o'tgach va chora ko'rish uchun Senatga yuborildi. Qaror muhokama qilindi va unga bir nechta o'zgartirishlar kiritish taklif qilindi. 2, 3 va bo'limlariga o'zgartirishlar 4 tasi 1866 yil 8-iyunda qabul qilingan va o'zgartirilgan qaror 33 dan 11 gacha ovoz bilan qabul qilingan (5 kishi yo'q, ovoz bermagan). Palata Senatdagi tuzatishlarga 13 iyunda 138-36 ovoz bilan (10 kishi ovoz bermaslik bilan) rozi bo'ldi. Prezidentdan ushbu taklifni bir nechta shtat rahbarlariga etkazishni iltimos qilgan bir vaqtda qabul qilingan qaror 18 iyun kuni Kongressning har ikkala palatasi tomonidan qabul qilindi.^[16][17]

The Radikal respublikachilar qora tanlilar uchun fuqarolik huquqlarini ta'minlaganliklaridan mamnun edilar, ammo bu o'zgartirish qora tanlilarga siyosiy huquqlarni ta'minlay olmasligidan xafa bo'lishdi; xususan, ovoz berish huquqi.^[18] Masalan, Taddey Stivens, ko'ngli qolgan rahbar Radikal respublikachilar, dedi: "Menimcha, biz qadimgi imoratning eng yomon qismlarini yamoqlash bilan kifoyalanishimiz kerak, va uni ko'plab qismlarida qoldirib, bo'ronlar, sovuqlar va bo'ronlar ostida qolamiz. despotizm. "^[18][19] Abolitsionist Vendell Fillips buni "halokatli va to'liq taslim bo'lish" deb atagan.^[19] Keyinchalik bu nuqta O'n beshinchi o'zgartirish.

Shtatlar tomonidan ratifikatsiya qilish

  1866–1868 yillarda tasdiqlangan o'zgartirishlar oldidan sertifikatlash

  Dastlabki sertifikat rad etilganidan keyin tasdiqlangan oldindan sertifikatlash, 1868 yil

  Sertifikatlashdan keyingi tasdiqlangan o'zgartirish, uni birinchi marta rad etganidan so'ng, 1869-1976

  Sertifikatlashdan keyingi tasdiqlangan tuzatish, 1959 yil

  Tasdiqlangan tuzatish, ratifikatsiyani bekor qildi (bekor qilish ), keyin qayta ratifikatsiya qilingan. Oregon shtati attestatsiyadan keyingi sertifikatlashni bekor qildi va rasmiy sanoqqa kiritildi

  Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari hududlari 1868 yilda hali aytilmagan

Uni tasdiqlash uchun bir nechta davlatlarga o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishlar yuborish xati shakli

1866 yil 16-iyunda Davlat kotibi Uilyam Syuard o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni bir necha shtat gubernatorlariga tasdiqlash uchun yubordi. Tennesi shtati bundan mustasno, har bir sobiq Konfederativ shtatdagi qonun chiqaruvchi organlar uni ratifikatsiya qilishdan bosh tortdilar. Ushbu rad etishning o'tishiga olib keldi Qayta qurish to'g'risidagi aktlar. Mavjud shtat hukumatlarini e'tiborsiz qoldirib, harbiy hukumat yangi fuqarolik hukumatlari tashkil etilgunga qadar va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish tasdiqlangunga qadar o'rnatildi.^[20] Shuningdek, Kongress 1867 yil 2 martda sobiq Konfederativ davlat "ushbu davlat Kongressda vakillik huquqiga ega deb e'lon qilinishidan oldin" o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilishi shart bo'lgan qonunni qabul qilishga undadi.^[21]

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilgan birinchi yigirma sakkiz davlat:^[22]

1. Konnektikut: 1866 yil 30-iyun
2. Nyu-Xempshir: 1866 yil 6-iyul
3. Tennessi: 1866 yil 18-iyul
4. Nyu-Jersi: 1866 yil 11-sentyabr (1868 yil 20-fevral / 1868 yil 24-martda bekor qilingan; 2003 yil 23-aprelda qayta tasdiqlangan)
5. Oregon: 1866 yil 19 sentyabr (1868 yil 16 oktyabrda bekor qilingan; 1973 yil 25 aprelda qayta tasdiqlangan)
6. Vermont: 1866 yil 30 oktyabr
7. Nyu York: 1867 yil 10-yanvar
8. Ogayo shtati: 1867 yil 11-yanvar (1868 yil 13-yanvar bekor qilingan; 2003 yil 12-martda qayta tasdiqlangan)
9. Illinoys: 1867 yil 15-yanvar
10. G'arbiy Virjiniya: 1867 yil 16-yanvar
11. Michigan: 1867 yil 16-yanvar
12. Minnesota: 1867 yil 16-yanvar
13. Kanzas: 1867 yil 17-yanvar
14. Meyn: 1867 yil 19-yanvar
15. Nevada: 1867 yil 22-yanvar
16. Indiana: 1867 yil 23-yanvar
17. Missuri: 1867 yil 25-yanvar
18. Pensilvaniya: 1867 yil 6-fevral
19. Rod-Aylend: 1867 yil 7-fevral
20. Viskonsin: 1867 yil 13-fevral
21. Massachusets shtati: 1867 yil 20-mart
22. Nebraska: 1867 yil 15-iyun
23. Ayova: 1868 yil 16-mart
24. Arkanzas: 1868 yil 6-aprel
25. Florida: 1868 yil 9-iyun
26. Shimoliy Karolina: 1868 yil 4-iyul (1866 yil 14-dekabrda rad etilganidan keyin)
27. Luiziana: 1868 yil 9-iyul (1867 yil 6-fevralda rad etilganidan keyin)
28. Janubiy Karolina: 1868 yil 9-iyul (rad etishdan keyin 1866 yil 20-dekabr)

Agar Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi tomonidan bekor qilinishi noqonuniy bo'lsa, Janubiy Karolina ushbu tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilgan 28-shtat bo'lar edi, bu tuzatish Konstitutsiyaning bir qismi bo'lishi uchun etarli edi. Aks holda, zarur bo'lgan 28tadan faqat 26 ta shtat tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qildi. Ogayo va Nyu-Jersining qutqarilishi muhim tortishuvlarga va munozaralarga sabab bo'ldi, ammo bu ziddiyat yuzaga kelganligi sababli boshqa shtatlar tomonidan tasdiqlash davom etdi:

1868 yil 20-iyulda, Davlat kotibi Uilyam X.Syuard agar Nyu-Jersi va Ogayo shtatlari tomonidan ratifikatsiyani qaytarib olish noqonuniy bo'lsa, unda 1868 yil 9-iyulda Janubiy Karolina tomonidan 28-shtat sifatida ratifikatsiya qilinib, tuzatish Konstitutsiyaning bir qismiga aylanganligini tasdiqladi.^[23] Ertasi kuni Kongress o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni Konstitutsiyaning bir qismi deb e'lon qilgan va davlat kotibini e'lon qilish shunday qilib, shu bilan davlat ratifikatsiyani bekor qila olmasligini ko'rsatuvchi printsipni o'rnatadi.^[24] Natijada, Nyu-Jersi va Ogayo shtatlari Kongress qarorida ushbu tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilgan deb e'lon qilindi, shuningdek Alabama shtati ham nomlanib, 29 shtatni tashkil etdi.^[25][26]

Shu kuni yana bir davlat ratifikatsiya qildi:

27-iyul kuni kotib Syuard Gruziyadan rasmiy ratifikatsiyani oldi.^[27] Ertasi kuni, 28 iyul kuni, kotib Syuard o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilinganligini tasdiqlovchi rasmiy e'lon qildi.^[25] Kotib Syuard o'zining e'lonlari Kongressning qaroriga "muvofiq" ekanligini aytdi, ammo uning shtatlar rasmiy ro'yxatiga Alabama va Jorjiya, shuningdek, Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi kirdi.^[26][28] Oxir oqibat, Nyu-Jersi va Ogayo shtatlarining ishdan bo'shatilishi qonuniy deb hisoblanganida, Alabama va Jorjiyaning ratifikatsiyasi tufayli tuzatish qat'iy nazar bir vaqtning o'zida qabul qilingan bo'lar edi.

Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi shtatlari tarkibiga kiritilgani, ba'zilar ratifikatsiyani bekor qilish haqiqiyligiga shubha qilishlariga olib keldi. Alabama va Jorjiya shtatlari tarkibiga qo'shilishi ushbu xulosani shubha ostiga qo'ydi. Tasdiqlash masalalari bilan shug'ullanadigan Oliy sud ishlari bo'lgan bo'lsa-da, ushbu maxsus savol hech qachon hal qilinmagan. 1868 yil 16-oktabrda, tuzatish ratifikatsiya qilinganidan va Konstitutsiyaning bir qismidan uch oy o'tgach, Oregon ratifikatsiyani bekor qildi, shunda shtatlar sonini o'zgartirib, faol ravishda 27 ga etkazdi, ammo bu AQSh konstitutsiyasiga yoki 14-konstitutsiyasiga hech qanday ta'sir ko'rsatmadi. O'zgarishlar mavjud.

Keyinchalik o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish ratifikatsiya qilindi:^[22]

Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi 2003 yilda o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni qayta ratifikatsiya qilganligi sababli, qayta qurish davrida mavjud bo'lgan barcha AQSh shtatlari ushbu tuzatishni tasdiqladilar.

Fuqarolik va fuqarolik huquqlari

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning ikki sahifasi Milliy arxivlar

Fon

Tuzatishning 1-bo'limi AQSh fuqaroligini rasmiy ravishda belgilaydi va turli xil shaxslarni himoya qiladi inson huquqlari har qanday davlat tomonidan qisqartirilishi yoki inkor etilishidan yoki davlat aktyori. Xususiy shaxslar tomonidan ushbu fuqarolik huquqlarini qisqartirish yoki rad etish ushbu tuzatish bilan ko'rib chiqilmaydi; yilda bo'lib o'tgan Oliy sud Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar (1883)^[30] tuzatish "davlat harakatlari" bilan cheklanganligi va shu sababli Kongressni qonunga xilof ravishda vakolat bermaganligi irqiy kamsitish xususiy shaxslar yoki tashkilotlar tomonidan (garchi Kongress ba'zan bunday kamsitishga Konstitutsiyaning boshqa qismlari orqali erishish mumkin bo'lsa ham). AQSh Oliy sudi adliya Jozef P. Bredli da izoh berdi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar "Shaxsiy huquqlarga individual ravishda tajovuz qilish [o'n to'rtinchi] tuzatishning mavzusi emas. Bu chuqurroq va kengroq ko'lamga ega. U barcha qonunlarni bekor qiladi va bekor qiladi, va imtiyozlar va immunitetlarga putur etkazadigan har qanday turdagi davlat harakatlari. Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari fuqarolari yoki ularga qonuniy tartibda hayotsiz, erkinlik yoki mol-mulk bilan zarar etkazadigan yoki ularning birortasiga qonunlarning teng himoyasini inkor etadigan. "^[31]

The Radikal respublikachilar O'n uchinchi tuzatishni ilgari surganlar, yangi ozod qilingan insonlar uchun keng fuqarolik va inson huquqlarini ta'minlashga umid qilar edi, ammo uning amal qilish ko'lami kuchga kirguniga qadar bahslashdi.^[32] O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni ishlab chiquvchilar ushbu Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunni Oliy sud tomonidan konstitutsiyaga zid deb e'lon qilinishidan himoya qilish va shuningdek, bo'lajak Kongressning shunchaki ko'pchilik ovozi bilan uni o'zgartirishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik uchun Konstitutsiyada mustahkamlangan ushbu tamoyillarni istashdi.^[33][34] Ushbu bo'lim, shuningdek, qora tanli odamlarga qarshi zo'ravonliklarga javoban edi Janubiy Shtatlar. Qayta qurish bo'yicha qo'shma qo'mita shuni aniqladiki, faqat Konstitutsiyaga kiritilgan o'zgartish o'sha shtatlar ichida qora tanlilar huquqlari va farovonligini himoya qilishi mumkin.^[35]

1-bo'lim tuzatishning eng tez-tez sud jarayoni bo'lib kelgan,^[36] va bu o'zgartirish, o'z navbatida, Konstitutsiyaning eng tez-tez sudga tortiladigan qismi bo'lgan.^[37]

Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi band

Michigan shtatidan AQSh senatori Jeykob M. Xovard, Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi bandning muallifi

Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi maqola Oliy sudning qarorini bekor qildi Dred Skott qaror bu qora tanli odamlar fuqaro bo'lmagan va fuqaro bo'la olmagan va fuqarolik imtiyozlaridan ham foydalana olmagan.^{[38][39][40][41]} Kongressning ba'zi a'zolari konstitutsiyaga muvofiqligi haqidagi shubhalarni bartaraf etish uchun o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish uchun ovoz berishdi 1866 yildagi fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun,^[42] yoki keyingi biron bir Kongress keyinchalik ushbu Qonunning asosiy qoidalarini bekor qilishi yoki o'zgartira olmasligini ta'minlash.^[43] 1866 yildagi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunda Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan barcha odamlar, agar ular begona kuchga bo'ysunmasa, fuqarolik berildi va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning ushbu bandi ushbu qoidani konstitutsiyalashtirdi. Ga binoan Garret Epps, Baltimor universiteti konstitutsiyaviy huquq professori, "Faqat bitta guruh [AQShning yurisdiktsiyasiga bo'ysunmaydi) - akkreditatsiyadan o'tgan xorijiy diplomatlar va ularning oilalari, ular federal hukumat tomonidan chiqarib yuborilishi mumkin, ammo hibsga olinmagan yoki sud qilinmagan. . "^[41] AQSh Oliy sudi Elk va Uilkins (1884) ushbu kontekstda Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi bandning maqsadi va "Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan yoki fuqarolikka ega bo'lgan shaxslar" va "ularning yurisdiktsiyasiga bo'ysunadigan" so'zlariga nisbatan:

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning birinchi jumlasining asosiy maqsadi mamlakat bo'ylab va ushbu Sudda fuqarolarning fuqaroligi to'g'risida turli xil fikrlar bo'lgan savolni hal qilish edi. bepul negrlar (Skott va Sandford, 19 Qanday qilib. 393) va shubhasizki, barcha odamlar, oq yoki qora va yo'qmi ilgari qul bo'lganlar yoki yo'q, tug'ilgan yoki tabiiylashtirilgan Qo'shma Shtatlarda va biron bir begona kuchga sodiqligingiz sababli, Qo'shma Shtatlar va ular yashaydigan davlat fuqarolari bo'lishi kerak. Qassobxona holatlari, 16 devor. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder va G'arbiy Virjiniyaga qarshi, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. Ushbu bo'lim fuqarolikning ikkita manbasini va faqat ikkita manbani: tug'ilish va fuqarolikni qabul qilishni nazarda tutadi. Fuqaro deb e'lon qilingan shaxslar "Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan yoki fuqarolikka ega bo'lgan va ularning yurisdiktsiyasiga bo'ysunadigan barcha shaxslardir". Ushbu so'nggi so'zlarning ravshan ma'nosi shunchaki qaysidir ma'noda yoki ma'lum darajada Qo'shma Shtatlar yurisdiksiyasiga bo'ysunmaydi, balki ularning siyosiy yurisdiktsiyasiga to'liq bo'ysunadi va ularga bevosita va zudlik bilan sadoqatlidir. Va so'zlar bir holatda tug'ilish vaqtiga tegishli, xuddi boshqa holatda fuqarolikka olish vaqtiga tegishli. Tug'ilgan paytda AQSh yurisdiktsiyasiga bo'ysunmagan shaxslar bundan keyin bunday bo'la olmaydi, bundan tashqari, alohida-alohida yoki sud tomonidan ostida fuqarolikka qabul qilish aktlari yoki chet el hududi olingan shartnoma kuchi bilan birgalikda.^[44]

Kongressning ushbu tuzatish to'g'risidagi munozarasi paytida qilingan bayonotlarga, shuningdek, o'sha paytda tarqalgan urf-odatlar va tushunchalarga asoslanib, Kongressning asl niyati va ratifikatsiya qiluvchi davlatlarning turli xil talqinlari mavjud.^[45][46] Ushbu bandda yuzaga kelgan ba'zi bir muhim masalalar, uning kiritilgan darajasidir Mahalliy amerikaliklar, uning farzandli bo'lganida Qo'shma Shtatlarda qonuniy ravishda mavjud bo'lgan fuqaro bo'lmaganlarni qamrab olishi, ushbu band fuqarolikni bekor qilishga imkon beradimi va ushbu bandga tegishli bo'ladimi? noqonuniy muhojirlar.^[47]

Tarixchi Erik Foner degan savolni kim o'rganib chiqdi AQShning tug'ilish huquqi fuqaroligi boshqa mamlakatlarga:

Amerikalik deb nomlangan ko'p narsalar - masalan, shaxsiy erkinlikka sadoqat yoki ijtimoiy imkoniyat - boshqa mamlakatlarda mavjud. Ammo tug'ilish huquqi fuqaroligi Qo'shma Shtatlarni (Kanada bilan birga) rivojlangan dunyoda noyob qiladi. [...] Tug'ilganlik fuqaroligi - bu tenglik va milliy ongni kengaytirishga sodiqlik ifodasidir Qayta qurish. [...] Tug'ilgan fuqarolik - bu tenglik printsipiga asoslangan haqiqiy demokratiyani yaratish uchun tiklanish davridagi titanik kurashning merosidir.^[48]

Garrett Epps, shuningdek, Erik Foner singari, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tenglik jihatini ta'kidlaydi:

Uning markaziy maqsadi Qo'shma Shtatlardagi fuqarolik degan fikrdir universal- biz bir millatmiz, bir toifadagi fuqarolarimiz va fuqarolik shu erda tug'ilgan har bir kishiga tegishli. Fuqarolar bunday huquqlarga ega emaslar federal hukumat na har qanday davlat o'z xohishiga ko'ra bekor qilishi mumkin; hujjatsiz immigrantlar ham - "shaxslar", tuzatishlar tilida aytganda, tegishli tartibda va qonunning teng himoyasida bo'lish huquqiga ega.^[41]

Mahalliy amerikaliklar

Kongressning senatorga o'zgartirishlar kiritish haqidagi dastlabki munozarasi paytida Jeykob M. Xovard Michigan shtati - Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi band muallifi^[49]- 1866 yildagi avvalgi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunga binoan, har xil tahrirga qaramay, bir xil tarkibga ega bo'lgan bandni ta'riflagan, ya'ni Mahalliy amerikaliklar o'zlarining qabila aloqalarini saqlab turuvchi va "AQShda tug'ilgan, chet elliklar, chet elliklar bo'lgan, elchilar yoki tashqi ishlar vazirlarining oilalariga mansub shaxslar".^[50] Tarixchi Glenn V. LaFantasiening fikriga ko'ra G'arbiy Kentukki universiteti, "Senatorlarning ko'p sonli a'zolari uning fuqarolik to'g'risidagi bandga bo'lgan munosabatini qo'llab-quvvatladilar."^[49] Boshqalar, shuningdek, elchilar va tashqi ishlar vazirlarining farzandlari chetlashtirilishi kerakligi to'g'risida kelishib oldilar.^[51][52]

Senator Jeyms Rood Doolittle Viskonsin shtati barcha mahalliy amerikaliklar Qo'shma Shtatlar yurisdiktsiyasiga bo'ysunishini, shuning uchun "hindular soliq solinmaydi" iborasini afzal ko'rishlarini ta'kidladilar,^[53] lekin Senat Adliya qo'mitasi raisi Lyman Trumbull va Xovard federal hukumat o'zlarini boshqaradigan va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari bilan shartnoma tuzadigan tub amerikalik qabilalar ustidan to'liq yurisdiktsiyaga ega emasligini ta'kidlab, buni rad etdi.^[54][55] Yilda Elk va Uilkins (1884),^[56] Ushbu bandning ma'nosi Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilish milliy fuqarolikni avtomatik ravishda uzaytiradimi-yo'qligi to'g'risida tekshirildi. Oliy sud o'z qabilalaridan ixtiyoriy ravishda voz kechgan tub amerikaliklar avtomatik ravishda milliy fuqarolikni olmagan deb hisoblaydi.^[57] Masala o'tishi bilan hal qilindi 1924 yildagi Hindiston fuqaroligi to'g'risidagi qonun, mahalliy aholiga to'liq AQSh fuqaroligini bergan.^[58]

Chet el fuqarolaridan tug'ilgan bolalar

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarida tug'ilgan va uning yurisdiksiyasiga bo'ysunadigan bolalar tug'ilishidan Amerika fuqarosi bo'lishini ta'minlaydi. Asosiy ramkachi Jon Armor Bingem davomida aytilgan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining 39-kongressi o'tishdan ikki yil oldin:^[59]

Konstitutsiyada yozilgan narsalarning shunchaki deklaratsiyasi bo'lgan har bir inson Qo'shma Shtatlar yurisdiktsiyasida tug'ilganligi haqidagi kirish qismida men aybdor emasman. har qanday chet el suverenitetiga sodiq bo'lmagan ota-onalarning bu sizning Konstitutsiyangizning tili bilan aytganda, tabiiy ravishda tug'ilgan fuqaro; ammo, janob, men yana bir bor aytishim mumkinki, Qo'shma Shtatlar Kongressi har doim Qo'shma Shtatlar yurisdiksiyasida tug'ilgan har qanday odamni aytish kuchiga yoki kuchiga ega bo'lganligini inkor etaman, chet el sadoqati tufayli emas, Qo'shma Shtatlar fuqarosi emas va bo'lmasligi ham mumkin.

Tuzatishlar qabul qilingan paytda Prezident Endryu Jonson va uchta senator, shu jumladan Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun muallifi Trumbull, ikkala Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunni ham tasdiqladilar^[60][61] va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish tug'ilgan bolalarga fuqarolik beradi chet el fuqarolari Qo'shma Shtatlarda.^[62][63] Senator Edgar Kovan Pensilvaniya shtatining fikri mutlaqo boshqacha edi.^[64] Ba'zi olimlar, Fuqarolik to'g'risidagi bandning bolalariga nisbatan qo'llanilishi kerakligi to'g'risida bahslashmoqdalar ruxsatsiz muhojirlar bugungi kunda "muammo ... o'sha paytda mavjud bo'lmagan ".^[65] 21-asrda Kongress vaqti-vaqti bilan amaliyotni qisqartirish uchun nizom yoki konstitutsiyaga o'zgartirishlar kiritish to'g'risida "tug'ilish turizmi ", unda chet el fuqarosi AQSh fuqaroligini olish uchun AQShda tug'ilgan.^[66]

Ushbu bandning muhojirlar bolasiga nisbatan ma'nosi sinovdan o'tkazildi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vong Kim Arkga qarshi (1898).^[67] Oliy sud O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishga binoan, Qo'shma Shtatlarda doimiy yashash joyi va yashash joyiga ega bo'lgan va Qo'shma Shtatlarda biznes bilan shug'ullanadigan va ota-onalari diplomatik xizmatda ishlamaydigan Xitoy fuqarolari uchun AQShda tug'ilgan erkak. yoki chet el kuchining boshqa rasmiy vakolatlari - AQSh fuqarosi bo'lgan. Keyingi qarorlar printsipni xitoylik bo'lmagan kelib chiqishi chet el fuqarolarining farzandlariga nisbatan qo'lladi.^[68]

Ga ko'ra Tashqi ishlar bo'yicha qo'llanma tomonidan nashr etilgan Davlat departamenti, "Keng tarqalganiga qaramay ommaviy e'tiqod, AQShning chet eldagi harbiy inshootlari va chet eldagi AQShning diplomatik yoki konsullik muassasalari [o'n to'rtinchi] tuzatish ma'nosida Qo'shma Shtatlarning bir qismi emas. "^[69]

Fuqarolikni yo'qotish

Milliy fuqarolikni yo'qotish faqat quyidagi holatlarda mumkin:

• Firibgarlik fuqarolikka qabul qilish jarayon. Texnik nuqtai nazardan, bu fuqarolikni yo'qotish emas, balki vatandoshlikni bekor qilish va immigrant deb e'lon qilishdir. hech qachon bo'lmagan Qo'shma Shtatlar fuqarosi.^[70]
• Fuqarolikka qabul qilinganidan keyin besh yil ichida "anti-Amerika" tashkilotlari (masalan, Kommunistik partiya, boshqa totalitar partiya yoki terroristik tashkilotlar) bilan bog'lanish. Davlat departamenti bunday bog'lanishlarni arizachining fuqarolikni qabul qilish jarayonida yolg'on yoki yashirgan dalil bo'lishi kerakligi haqida etarli dalil sifatida ko'rib chiqadi.^[70]
• Besh yillik sharafli xizmatidan oldin AQSh qurolli kuchlarini hurmat bilan ozod qilish, agar sharafli xizmat fuqarolikka qabul qilish uchun asos bo'lsa.^[70]
• Fuqarolikdan ixtiyoriy ravishda chiqish. Bunga Davlat departamenti tomonidan maxsus belgilangan voz kechish tartib-qoidalari yoki milliy fuqarolikdan voz kechish istagini ko'rsatadigan boshqa harakatlar orqali erishish mumkin.^[71]

Mamlakat tarixining aksariyat qismida chet el fuqaroligini ixtiyoriy ravishda qabul qilish yoki undan foydalanish milliy fuqarolikni bekor qilish uchun etarli sabab deb hisoblangan.^[72] Ushbu kontseptsiya Qo'shma Shtatlar va boshqa mamlakatlar o'rtasida tuzilgan bir qator shartnomalarda mustahkamlangan ( Bankroft shartnomalari ). Biroq, Oliy sud ushbu kontseptsiyani rad etdi Afroyim va Rask (1967),^[73] shu qatorda; shu bilan birga Vens va Terrazasga qarshi (1980),^[74] o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning fuqarolik to'g'risidagi moddasi Kongressni fuqaroligini bekor qilishiga to'sqinlik qiladi. Biroq, Kongress ilgari Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan bo'lmagan shaxsga bergan fuqaroligini bekor qilishi mumkinligi ta'kidlandi.^[75]

Imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar moddasi

Milliy fuqarolik imtiyozlari va immunitetlarini davlatlarning aralashuvidan himoya qiluvchi Imtiyozlar yoki Immunitetlar moddasi quyidagi qoidalardan kelib chiqqan edi. Imtiyozlar va immunitetlar moddasi davlat fuqaroligining imtiyozlari va immunitetlarini boshqa davlatlarning aralashuvidan himoya qiluvchi IV moddaning.^[76] In So'yish uyi holatlari (1873),^[76] Oliy sud Konstitutsiya fuqarolikning ikki alohida turini - "milliy fuqarolik" va "davlat fuqaroligini" tan oldi, degan xulosaga keldi va sud imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar moddasi davlatlarga faqat milliy fuqarolik sharofati bilan berilgan imtiyoz va immunitetlarga aralashishni taqiqlaydi, degan xulosaga keldi.^[76][77] Sud, milliy fuqarolikning imtiyozlari va immunitetlariga faqat "o'zlarining mavjudligini Federal hukumat, uning milliy xarakteri, Konstitutsiyasi yoki qonunlari oldida qarzdor bo'lgan" huquqlarni o'z ichiga olgan degan xulosaga keldi.^[76] Sud bunday huquqlarni, shu jumladan, dengiz portlari va suzib yuriladigan suv yo'llariga kirish huquqi, federal idoraga saylanish huquqi, ochiq dengizda yoki chet davlat yurisdiksiyasida federal hukumatni himoya qilish, o'rindiqqa sayohat qilish huquqini o'z ichiga olgan. hukumat, tinch yo'l bilan yig'ilish va hukumatga ariza berish huquqi, habeas korpus hujjatining imtiyozi va hukumat boshqaruvida ishtirok etish huquqi.^[76][77] Ushbu qaror bekor qilinmagan va bir necha bor maxsus tasdiqlangan.^[78] Asosan torligi natijasida So'yish uyi fikricha, keyinchalik ushbu band bir asrdan ko'proq vaqt davomida uxlab qoldi.^[79]

Yilda Saenz va Ro (1999),^[80] sud qaroriga binoan "sayohat qilish huquqi "imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar bandi bilan himoyalangan:

O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning imtiyozlari yoki immunitetlari bandini qamrab olish borasida tubdan farqli fikrlarga qaramay, aksariyat hollarda ko'pchilik tomonidan bildirilgan va turli xil fikrlar So'yish uyi holatlari (1873), ushbu band sayohat qilish huquqining uchinchi komponentini himoya qilishi har doim ham odatiy hol edi. Ko'pchilik uchun yozish So'yish uyi holatlari, Adliya Miller bu imtiyozlardan biri ekanligini tushuntirdi ushbu bandda keltirilgan "bu Qo'shma Shtatlar fuqarosi o'z xohishiga ko'ra, ushbu davlatning boshqa fuqarolari bilan bir xil huquqlarga ega bo'lgan holda, unda vijdonan yashab, Ittifoqning har qanday davlatining fuqarosi bo'lishi mumkin". (diqqat qo'shilgan)

Adliya Miller aslida yozgan So'yish uyi holatlari bir davlatning fuqarosi bo'lish huquqi (o'sha shtatda yashash orqali) "tomonidan berilgan juda maqola ko'rib chiqilayotgan "band" bilan emas, balki ko'rib chiqilmoqda "(ta'kidlangan qo'shilgan).^[76][81]

Yilda McDonald va Chikago (2010), Adolat Klarens Tomas, qo'shilishda ko'pchilik bilan kelishgan holda Ikkinchi o'zgartirish davlatlarga qarshi bo'lib, u ushbu xulosaga tegishli protsedura o'rniga imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar bandi orqali erishganligini e'lon qildi. Rendi Barnett Adolat Tomasning kelishgan fikrini imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar bandini "to'liq tiklash" deb atadi.^[82]

Yilda Timbs va Indiana (2019), Adolat Tomas va Adolat Nil Gorsuch, alohida kelishilgan fikrlarda Sakkizinchi o'zgartirishning haddan tashqari ko'p miqdordagi jarimalar moddasi davlatlarga qarshi tegishli protsedura o'rniga imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar moddasi orqali kiritilgan.^[83]

Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band

Umumiy jihatlar

Tegishli jarayon odil sudlovni amalga oshirish va shu tariqa tegishli sudlov qoidalari hukumat tomonidan qonun sanktsiyasidan tashqari o'zboshimchalik bilan hayotni, erkinlikni yoki mulkni rad etishdan himoya vazifasini bajaradi.^[84][85][86] Yilda Xurtado va Kaliforniyaga qarshi (1884), AQSh Oliy sudi shunday dedi:^[87]

[O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish] tegishli qonun jarayoni har bir davlatda o'z vakolatlarini davlatning ajralmas va zaxira vakolatlaridan kelib chiqadigan, ushbu erkinlik va adolatning asosiy printsiplari doirasida amalga oshiriladigan er qonunini nazarda tutadi. bizning barcha fuqarolik va siyosiy institutlarimizning asosi va bu eng katta xavfsizlik, odamlarning o'z qonunlarini qabul qilish va ularni o'z xohishlariga ko'ra o'zgartirish huquqiga bog'liqdir.

Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band odatlanib qolgan qonunchilikni bekor qilish. The Beshinchi Masalan, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishlar davlat farovonligini davlat tomonidan tartibga solishni taqiqlamaydi. Buning o'rniga, ular faqat bunday tartibga solish sodir bo'lgan jarayonni boshqaradilar. Sud ilgari o'tkazganidek, bunday tegishli protsedura "faqat qonunlar asossiz, o'zboshimchalik va injiq bo'lmasligi va tanlangan vositalar erishmoqchi bo'lgan ob'ektga nisbatan haqiqiy va mazmunli munosabatda bo'lishini talab qiladi".^[88] Yuqorida keltirilgan ko'rsatmalarga qaramay, Sud jarayoni to'g'risidagi nizom Oliy sudga o'z vakolatlarini amalga oshirishga imkon beradi sud nazorati, "chunki sud tomonidan sud tomonidan moddiy huquq va protsessual masalalarda qo'llaniladigan tegishli protsessual bandi mavjud."^[89] adolat Louis Brandeis in uning kelishgan fikrida kuzatilgan Uitni Kaliforniyaga qarshi, 274 US 357, 373 (1927), "[d] menga ishonarli tuyulgan aksincha dalillarni inobatga olgan holda, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tegishli protsedurasi moddiy huquq masalalariga ham, ishlarga ham tegishli ekanligi aniqlandi. Shunday qilib, erkinlik atamasi tarkibidagi barcha asosiy huquqlar Federal Konstitutsiya tomonidan davlatlar bosqinidan himoyalangan. "^[90] O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning amal qilish muddati to'g'risidagi bandi faqat davlatlarga nisbatan qo'llaniladi, ammo aks holda u matn jihatidan "protsessual protsedura" moddasi bilan bir xildir. Beshinchi o'zgartirish federal hukumatga qarshi qo'llaniladigan; ikkala band ham xuddi shunday ta'limotlarni o'z ichiga olgan holda talqin qilingan protsessual sud jarayoni va moddiy sud jarayoni.^[91] Protsessual sud jarayoni - bu hukumat insonning hayoti, erkinligi yoki mol-mulkiga daxldor bo'lgan manfaatlariga aralashishga urinish paytida adolatli sud jarayonining kafolati va moddiy sud jarayoni fuqarolarning asosiy huquqlari hukumat tomonidan buzilmasligi kafolati. .^[92] Bundan tashqari, Adolat tomonidan kuzatilganidek Jon M. Xarlan II uning alohida fikrida Po va Ullman, 367 AQSh 497, 541 (1961), iqtibos keltirgan holda Xurtado va Kaliforniyaga qarshi, 110 AQSh 516, 532 (1884), "tegishli protseduralarning kafolatlari, garchi ularning ildizi bo'lsa ham Magna Carta '' legem terrae '' va "ijro etuvchi usurpatsiya va zulmga qarshi" protsessual kafolatlar sifatida qaraladigan ushbu mamlakatda 'o'zboshimchalik bilan qonunchilikka qarshi himoya ham bo'ldi'.^[93] O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tegishli protsedura moddasi o'z ichiga oladi qoidalarining aksariyati Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi dastlab faqat federal hukumatga qarshi qo'llanilgan va ularni shtatlarga qarshi qo'llagan.^[94] Amalga oshiriladigan protsedura moddasi, Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari fuqarosi bo'lish-bo'lmasligidan qat'i nazar, amal qiladi.^[41]

O'ziga xos jihatlar

The Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudi bandlarni keng talqin qilib, ushbu bandlar uchta himoya bilan ta'minlangan degan xulosaga keladi: protsessual sud jarayoni (fuqarolik va jinoyat protsessida); moddiy sud jarayoni; va uchun vosita sifatida huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasini kiritish. Ushbu jihatlar quyidagi bo'limlarda muhokama qilinadi.

Moddiy jarayon

Boshlash Allgeyer va Luiziana (1897),^[95] AQSh Oliy sudi "Jarayon" bandini taqdim etgan deb talqin qildi mazmunli xususiy shartnomalarni himoya qilish, shu bilan turli xil ijtimoiy va iqtisodiy tartibga solishni taqiqlash; ushbu printsip "deb nomlanganshartnoma erkinligi ".^[96] Shunday qilib, Sud non ishlab chiqaradigan nonvoyxonada ishchilar uchun eng ko'p ish vaqti belgilagan qonunni bekor qildi Lochner va Nyu-York (1905)^[97] va eng kam ish haqi to'g'risidagi qonunni bekor qildi Adkins va bolalar kasalxonasi (1923).^[98] Yilda Meyer va Nebraska (1923),^[99] Sud "sud jarayoni" moddasi bilan himoyalangan "erkinlik" ni ta'kidladi

shubhasiz ... faqat tanani cheklashdan ozodlikni emas, balki shaxsning shartnoma tuzish, har qanday umumiy hayot kasblari bilan shug'ullanish, foydali bilim olish, turmush qurish, uy qurish va tarbiya olish huquqini bildiradi. bolalar, o'z vijdon amri bilan Xudoga sig'inish va umuman olganda umumiy huquqda erkin insonlar tomonidan baxtli hayotga intilish uchun muhim bo'lgan uzoq vaqtdan buyon e'tirof etilgan imtiyozlardan foydalanish.^[100]

Biroq, Sud davlat kabi ba'zi iqtisodiy tartibga solishni qo'llab-quvvatladi Taqiq qonunlar (Mugler va Kanzasga qarshi, 1887),^[101] kon ishchilari uchun maksimal ish soatlarini e'lon qiluvchi qonunlar (Xolden va Xardi, 1898),^[102] ayol ishchilar uchun maksimal ish soatlarini belgilaydigan qonunlar (Myuller va Oregon, 1908),^[103] va Prezident Vudro Uilson temir yo'l ish tashlashiga aralashish (Uilson yangi, 1917),^[104] shuningdek, giyohvand moddalarni tartibga soluvchi federal qonunlar (Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Doremus, 1919).^[105] Sud "shartnoma erkinligi" ishlarini rad etdi, ammo aniq bekor qilmadi West Coast mehmonxonasi va Parrish (1937).^[106]

Sud "Erkinlik" atamasini tegishli protsedura qoidalarida izohladi Beshinchi va o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirishlar Bolling va Sharpga qarshi (1954) keng ma'noda:

Garchi Sud "erkinlik" ni hech qanday aniqlik bilan aniqlamagan bo'lsa-da, bu atama faqat tanani cheklash erkinligi bilan chegaralanmaydi. Ozodlik qonunchilikka binoan, shaxs erkin yurishi mumkin bo'lgan barcha xatti-harakatlarga taalluqlidir va uni tegishli davlat maqsadlaridan tashqari cheklash mumkin emas.^[107][108]

Yilda Po va Ullman (1961), norozi sudya Jon Marshall Xarlan II O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish sharti bilan himoyalangan "erkinlik" ga keng qarashni qabul qildi:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; va hokazo. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints ... and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.^[109]

This broad view of liberty was adopted by the Supreme Court in Grisvold va Konnektikut^[110] (for further information see below). Although the "freedom of contract" described above has fallen into disfavor, by the 1960s, the Court had extended its interpretation of substantive due process to include other rights and freedoms that are not enumerated in the Constitution but that, according to the Court, extend or derive from existing rights.^[96] For example, the Due Process Clause is also the foundation of a constitutional maxfiylik huquqi. The Court first ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Grisvold va Konnektikut (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law criminalizing tug'ilishni nazorat qilish.^[111] Adolat esa Uilyam O. Duglas wrote for the majority that the right to privacy was found in the "penumbras" of various provisions in the Bill of Rights, Justices Artur Goldberg va Jon Marshall Xarlan II wrote in concurring opinions that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause included individual privacy.^[112]

The maxfiylik huquqi uchun asos bo'lgan Roe Vadega qarshi (1973),^[113] in which the Court invalidated a Texas law forbidding abortion except to save the mother's life. Like Goldberg's and Harlan's concurring opinions in Grisvold, the majority opinion authored by Justice Garri Blekmun located the right to privacy in the Due Process Clause's protection of liberty. The decision disallowed many state and federal abortion restrictions, and it became one of the most controversial in the Court's history.^[114] Yilda Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi (1992),^[115] the Court decided that "the essential holding of Roe Vadega qarshi should be retained and once again reaffirmed".^[116]

Yilda Lourens va Texasga qarshi (2003),^[117] the Court found that a Texas law against same-sex sexual intercourse violated the right to privacy.^[118] Yilda Obergefell va Xodjes (2015), the Court ruled that the fundamental right to marriage included same-sex couples being able to marry.^[119]

Protsessual sud jarayoni

When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision maker. For example, such process is due when a government agency seeks to terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.^[120][121] The Court has also ruled that the Due Process Clause requires judges to rad etish themselves in cases where the judge has a manfaatlar to'qnashuvi. Masalan, ichida Kaperton va A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009),^[122] the Court ruled that a justice of the G'arbiy Virjiniya Oliy Apellyatsiya sudi had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court.^[123]

Birlashtirish

Ko'p bo'lsa ham davlat konstitutsiyalari are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi. Yilda Barron - Baltimor (1833),^[124] the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states.^[125] However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a doctrine called "qo'shilish ".^[94]

Whether incorporation was intended by the amendment's framers, such as John Bingham, has been debated by legal historians.^[126] Huquqshunos olimning fikriga ko'ra Oxil Rid Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the same individual rights as the federal government; all these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment.^[127]

By the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states.^[128] The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the Birinchidan, Ikkinchi, To'rtinchi, Fifth (except for its Katta hakamlar hay'ati ) va Oltinchi Amendments, along with the Haddan tashqari jarimalar moddasi va Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Sakkizinchi o'zgartirishning.^[129] Da Uchinchi o'zgartirish has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Ikkinchi davr ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom va Keriga qarshi.^[130] The Ettinchi o'zgartirish right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states,^[129][131] but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause does apply to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal".^[132]

The last right to be incorporated was the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment when the Supreme Court ruled in Timbs va Indiana (2019) that right to apply to the states.^[133]

Teng himoya qilish moddasi

Vakil Jon Bingem of Ohio, principal author of the Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause was created largely in response to the lack of equal protection provided by law in states with Qora kodlar. Under Black Codes, blacks could not sue, give evidence, or be witnesses. They also were punished more harshly than whites.^[134][135] Oliy sud Strauder va G'arbiy Virjiniyaga qarshi said the Fourteenth Amendment not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and authorized Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.^[136] In 1880, the Supreme Court stated in Strauder va G'arbiy Virjiniyaga qarshi specifically that the Equal Protection Clause was

designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

The Equal Protection Clause applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.^[41] The clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.^{[137][138][139]} The purpose of the clause is not only to guarantee equality both in laws for security of person as well as in proceedings, but also to insure the "equal right to the laws of due process and impartially administered before the courts of justice".^[135] Although the text of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Equal Protection Clause only against the states, the Supreme Court, since Bolling va Sharpga qarshi (1954), has applied the clause against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under a doctrine called "teskari qo'shilish ".^[140][141]

Yilda Hik Vo va Xopkins (1886), the Supreme Court has clarified that the meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as (in this case) qonuniy musofirlar in the United States who are Chinese citizens:^[142][143]

Ushbu qoidalar irqiy, rang va millat farqlarini hisobga olmasdan, hududiy yurisdiktsiyadagi barcha shaxslarga nisbatan qo'llanilishida universaldir va qonunlarning bir xil himoyasi teng qonunlarni himoya qilish garovidir.

Persons "within its jurisdiction" are entitled to equal protection from a state. Largely because the Imtiyozlar va immunitetlar moddasi of Article IV has from the beginning guaranteed the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, the Supreme Court has rarely construed the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in relation to natural persons.^[143] Yilda Plyler va Doe (1982), where the Court held that aliens illegally present in a state are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims^[143][144] the Court explicated the meaning of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" as follows: "[U]se of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."^[144] The Court reached this understanding among other things from Senator Howard, a member of the O'n besh kishidan iborat qo'shma qo'mita, and the floor manager of the amendment in the Senate. Senator Howard was explicit about the broad objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a state:^[144]

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. [emphasis added by the U.S. Supreme Court]^[145]

The relationship between the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was addressed by Justice Field in Vong Ving AQShga qarshi (1896).^[146] He observed with respect to the phrase "within its jurisdiction": "The term 'person', used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. ... The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar—in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."^[147]

The Supreme Court also decided whether foreign corporations are also within the jurisdiction of a state, ruling that a foreign corporation which sued in a state court in which it was not licensed to do business to recover possession of property wrongfully taken from it in another state was within the jurisdiction and could not be subjected to unequal burdens in the maintenance of the suit.^[143] When a state has admitted a foreign corporation to do business within its borders, that corporation is entitled to equal protection of the laws but not necessarily to identical treatment with domestic corporations.^[143]

Yilda Santa-Klara okrugi va Tinch okeanining temir yo'li (1886), the court reporter included a statement by Chief Justice Morrison Uayt in the decision's headnote:

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.^[148]

Bu diktat, which established that corporations enjoyed shaxsiyat under the Equal Protection Clause, was repeatedly reaffirmed by later courts.^[148] It remained the predominant view throughout the twentieth century, though it was challenged in dissents by justices such as Ugo Blek va Uilyam O. Duglas.^[149] Between 1890 and 1910, Fourteenth Amendment cases involving corporations vastly outnumbered those involving the rights of blacks, 288 to 19.^[150]

In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from sudyalar (Strauder va G'arbiy Virjiniyaga qarshi, 1880)^[151] or discriminating against Xitoylik amerikaliklar in the regulation of laundry businesses (Hik Vo va Xopkins, 1886),^[142] as violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Biroq, ichida Plessi va Fergyuson (1896),^[152] the Supreme Court held that the states could impose irqiy ajratish so long as they provided similar facilities—the formation of the "alohida, lekin teng "doktrinasi.^[153]

The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in Berea kolleji va Kentukki (1908),^[154] holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting colleges from having both black and white students. By the early 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice Oliver Vendell Xolms, kichik dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments".^[155]

Thurgood Marshall served as chief counsel in the landmark Fourteenth Amendment decision Brown va Ta'lim kengashi (1954).

The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown va Ta'lim kengashi (1954) reached the Court.^[156] Yilda jigarrang the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation was inherently harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional. jigarrang met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce jigarrang's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention.^[157] This resulted in the controversial desegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation.^[158] Yilda Sietl maktabining 1-sonli okrugiga qarshi jamoat maktablariga jalb qilingan ota-onalar (2007), the Court ruled that race could not be the determinative factor in determining to which public schools parents may transfer their children.^[159][160]

Yilda Plyler va Doe (1982) the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying free public education to illegal immigrants as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections.^[144][161]

Yilda Ernandes Texasga qarshi (1954), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Zenc " and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Meksikalik amerikaliklar Ushbu holatda.^[162] In the half-century following jigarrang, the Court extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Virjiniya (1996);^[163] Levi va Luiziana (1968)^[164]).^[165]

Oliy sud qaror qabul qildi Kaliforniya universiteti regentslari Bakkega qarshi (1978)^[166] bu tasdiqlovchi harakat shaklida irqiy kvotalar yilda davlat universiteti admissions was a violation of Title VI of the Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi 1964 y; however, race could be used as one of several factors without violating of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI.^[167] Yilda Gratz va Bollinger (2003)^[168] va Grutter va Bollinger (2003),^[169] the Court considered two race-conscious admissions systems at the Michigan universiteti. The university claimed that its goal in its admissions systems was to achieve irqiy xilma-xillik.^[170] Yilda Gratz, the Court struck down a points-based undergraduate admissions system that added points for minority status, finding that its rigidity violated the Equal Protection Clause; yilda Grutter, the Court upheld a race-conscious admissions process for the university's law school that used race as one of many factors to determine admission.^[171] Yilda Fisher va Texas universiteti (2013), the Court ruled that before race can be used in a public university's admission policy, there must be no workable race-neutral alternative.^[172][173] Yilda Schuette v. Ijobiy harakatlarni himoya qilish koalitsiyasi (2014), the Court upheld the constitutionality of a state constitutional prohibition on the state or local use of affirmative action.^[174][175]

Reed va Reed (1971),^[176] which struck down an Idaho probate law favoring men, was the first decision in which the Court ruled that arbitrary gender discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.^[177] Yilda Kreyg va Boren (1976),^[178] the Court ruled that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review.^[179] Reed va Kreyg later served as precedents to strike down a number of state laws discriminating by gender.^[177]

Beri Wesberry va Sanders (1964)^[180] va Reynolds va Sims (1964),^[181] the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to "bitta odam, bitta ovoz ".^[182] The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. Yilda Shou Renoga qarshi (1993),^[183] the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations.^[184]

The Equal Protection Clause served as the basis for the decision in Bush va Gor (2000),^[185] in which the Court ruled that no constitutionally valid recount of Florida's votes in the 2000 yilgi prezident saylovi could be held within the needed deadline; the decision effectively secured Bush's victory in the disputed election.^[186] Yilda Lotin Amerikasi Qo'shma Fuqarolari Ligasi Perriga qarshi (2006),^[187] sud qaror qildi Vakillar palatasining ko'pchilik rahbari Tom DeLay 's Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of Lotinlar and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.^[188]

State actor doctrine

Oldin Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Kruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) was decided by United States Supreme Court, the case was decided as a circuit case (Federal Cases No. 14897). Presiding of this circuit case was judge Jozef P. Bredli who wrote at page 710 of Federal Cases No. 14897 regarding the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:^[189]

It is a guarantee of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guarantee against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guarantee does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guarantee does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guarantee itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform'.

The above quote was quoted by United Supreme Court in Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Xarrisga qarshi, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) and supplemented by a quote from the majority opinion in Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari - Kruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) as written by Chief Justice Morrison Uayt:^[190][191]

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.

Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution, other than the O'n uchinchi tuzatish 's ban on slavery, protect not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials.^[192] Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelli va Kraemer (1948):^[193] "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar (1883):^[30] "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is "state action" meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental power.^[192] Yilda Virjiniyaning sobiq qismi (1880),^[194] the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment "have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State."^[195]

There are however instances where people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors.^[192] In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors when they act as davlat aktyorlari^[192] (i.e., acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state). The Court found that the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection of the laws.^[143]

The critical factor in determining the existence of state action is not governmental involvement with private persons or private corporations, but "the inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself".^[195] "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance."^[196]

The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State".^[197] "And the actions are to be attributable to the State apparently only if the State compelled the actions and not if the State merely established the process through statute or regulation under which the private party acted."^[143]

The rules developed by the Supreme Court for business regulation are that (1) the "mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment",^[a] and (2) "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the State".^[b]

Apportionment of representation in House of Representatives

Ostida I modda, 2-bo'lim, 3-band, the basis of representation of each state in the Vakillar palatasi edi aniqlandi qo'shib uchdan uch qismi of each state's slave population to its free population. Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the O'n uchinchi tuzatish, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment.^[198] This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as they continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote.^[198]

Two solutions were considered:

• reduce the Congressional representation of the former slave states (for example, by basing representation on the number of legal voters rather than the number of inhabitants)
• guarantee freed slaves the right to vote

On January 31, 1866, the House of Representatives voted in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would reduce a state's representation in the House in proportion to which that state used "race or color" as a basis to deny the right to vote in that state.^[198] The amendment failed in the Senate, partly because radical Republicans foresaw that states would be able to use ostensibly race-neutral criteria, such as educational and property qualifications, to disenfranchise the freed slaves without negative consequence. So the amendment was changed to penalize states in which the vote was denied to male citizens over twenty-one for har qanday reason other than participation in crime. Keyinchalik O'n beshinchi o'zgartirish was adopted to guarantee the right to vote could not be denied based on race or color.

The effect of Section 2 was twofold:

• Although the three-fifths clause was not formally repealed, it was effectively removed from the Constitution. In the words of the Supreme Court in Elk va Uilkins, Bo'lim 2 "abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons [slaves]".
• It was intended to penalize, by means of reduced Congressional representation, states that withheld the franchise from adult male citizens for any reason other than participation in crime. This, it was hoped, would induce the former slave states to recognize the political rights of the former slaves, without directly forcing them to do so—something that it was thought the states would not accept.^[198]

Majburiy ijro

The first reapportionment after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment occurred in 1873, based on the 1870 yilgi aholini ro'yxatga olish. Congress appears to have attempted to enforce the provisions of Section 2, but was unable to identify enough disenfranchised voters to make a difference to any state's representation.^[198] In the implementing statute, Congress added a provision stating that

should any state, after the passage of this Act, deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendments to the Constitution, article fourteen, section two, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned in this act to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.^[199]

A nearly identical provision remains in federal law to this day.^[200]

Despite this legislation, in subsequent reapportionments, no change has ever been made to any state's Congressional representation on the basis of the Amendment.^[198] Bonfield, writing in 1960, suggested that "[t]he hot political nature of such proposals has doomed them to failure".^[198] Aided by this lack of enforcement, janubiy shtatlar continued to use pretexts to prevent many blacks from voting until the passage of the 1965 yil ovoz berish huquqi to'g'risidagi qonun.^[201]

In To'rtinchi davr ishi Saunders v Wilkins (1945),^[202] Saunders claimed that Virginia should have its Congressional representation reduced because of its use of a ovoz berish solig'i and other voting restrictions. The plaintiff sued for the right to run for Congress at large in the state, rather than in one of its designated Congressional districts. The lawsuit was dismissed as a siyosiy savol.^[198]

Influence on voting rights

Some have argued that Section 2 was implicitly repealed by the O'n beshinchi o'zgartirish,^[203] but the Supreme Court acknowledged Section 2 in later decisions.

Yilda Minor va Xappersett (1875), the Supreme Court cited Section 2 as supporting its conclusion that the right to vote was not among the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" protected by Section 1.^[204] Women would not achieve equal voting rights throughout the United States until the adoption of O'n to'qqizinchi o'zgartirish 1920 yilda.

Yilda Richardson va Ramirez (1974), the Court cited Section 2 as justifying the states disenfranchising felons.^[205]

Yilda Hunter v. Underwood (1985), a case involving disenfranchising black misdemeanants, the Supreme Court concluded that the O'ninchi o'zgartirish cannot save legislation prohibited by the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically the Court concluded that laws passed with a discriminatory purpose are not excepted from the operation of the Equal Protection Clause by the "other crime" provision of Section 2. The Court held that Section 2 "was not designed to permit the purposeful racial discrimination [...] which otherwise violates [Section] 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment."^[206]

Tanqid

Abolitionist leaders criticized the amendment's failure to specifically prohibit the states from denying people the right to vote on the basis of race.^[207]

Section 2 protects the right to vote only of adult males, not adult females, making it the only provision of the Constitution to explicitly discriminate on the basis of sex.^[34] Bo'lim 2 was condemned by ayollarning suagristlari, kabi Elizabeth Cady Stanton va Syuzan B. Entoni, who had long seen their cause as linked to that of black rights. The separation of black civil rights from women's civil rights split the two movements for decades.^[208]

Participants in rebellion

Section 3 prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or xiyonat. However, a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress can override this limitation. In 1898, the Congress enacted a general removal of the Section 3 limitation.^[209][210] In 1975, the citizenship of Konfederatsiya umumiy Robert E. Li was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to June 13, 1865.^[211] In 1978, pursuant to Section 3, the Congress posthumously removed the service ban from Confederate president Jefferson Devis.^[212]

Section 3 was used to prevent Amerika sotsialistik partiyasi a'zo Viktor L. Berger, convicted of violating the Ayg'oqchilik to'g'risidagi qonun for his anti-militarist views, from uning o'rnini egallash in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920.^[213]

Validity of public debt

Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all davlat qarzi 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. Masalan, davomida Fuqarolar urushi several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Ittifoq.^[214] Yilda Perri Qo'shma Shtatlarga qarshi (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power".^[215]

The debt-ceiling crises of 2011 va 2013 raised the question of what is the President's authority under Section 4.^[216][217] Some, such as legal scholar Garret Epps, fiscal expert Bryus Bartlett va xazina kotibi Timoti Geytner, 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, Ijtimoiy Havfsizlik va Temir yo'llarni pensiya to'g'risidagi qonun recipients).^[218][219] Huquqiy tahlilchi Jeffri Rozen 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 tik turib.^[220] Ervin Chemerinskiy, professor va dekan Kaliforniya universiteti, Irvin qonun maktabi, 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]".^[221] Jek Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yel universiteti, opined that like Congress the President is bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, for otherwise, he could violate any part of the amendment at will. Because the President must obey the Section 4 requirement not to put the validity of the public debt into question, Balkin argued that President Obama would have been obliged "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—and certainly payments for future services—would not count and would have to be sacrificed. This might include, for example, Ijtimoiy Havfsizlik payments."^[217]

Majburiy ijro etish kuchi

The opinion of the Supreme Court in The So'yish uyi holatlari, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873) stated with a view to the Qayta qurishga tuzatishlar and about the Fourteenth Amendment's Section 5 Enforcement Clause dedi Amendentnikiga qarab Teng himoya qilish moddasi:^[222]

Ushbu tuzatishlar tarixi va biz ilgari muhokama qilgan ularning keng tarqalgan maqsadi nuqtai nazaridan ushbu bandga ma'no berish qiyin emas. Yangi ozod qilingan negrlar yashaydigan Shtatlarda ularga nisbatan adolatsizlik va mashaqqatlar bilan sinf sifatida kamsitilgan qonunlarning mavjudligi bu band bilan bartaraf qilinishi kerak bo'lgan yovuzlik edi va shu bilan bunday qonunlar taqiqlangan. Agar davlatlar o'z qonunlarini uning talablariga muvofiqlashtirmagan bo'lsalar, unda o'zgartirishlar moddasining beshinchi qismiga binoan Kongress uni tegishli qonunchilik bilan amalga oshirishga vakolat oldi.

5-bo'lim, shuningdek, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning ijro etuvchi moddasi sifatida tanilgan bo'lib, Kongressga tuzatishning boshqa qoidalarini amalga oshiruvchi qonunlarni qabul qilishga imkon beradi.^[223][224] In Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar (1883),^[30] Oliy sud bo'limni sharhladi 5 tor ma'noda, "Kongress ushbu nomidan qabul qilishga vakolatli bo'lgan qonunlar fuqaroning huquqlari to'g'risidagi umumiy qonunchilik emas, balki tuzatuvchi qonunchilikdir". Boshqacha qilib aytganda, tuzatish Kongressga qonunlarni faqat boshqa bo'limlarda himoyalangan huquqlarning buzilishiga qarshi kurashish uchun qabul qilish huquqini beradi.^[225]

Yilda Katsenbax va Morgan (1966),^[226] Sud ushbu bandning 4-qismining "e" bandini qo'llab-quvvatladi 1965 yil ovoz berish huquqi to'g'risidagi qonun, ovoz berish sharti sifatida, Savdo-sotiq bo'yicha talablarning ayrim shakllarini taqiqlovchi, Bo'lim bo'yicha Kongress vakolatlarini amalda bajarish 5 Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi bandni amalga oshirish uchun. Sud ushbu bo'limni qaror qildi 5 Kongressga tuzatish bilan kafolatlangan huquqlarni himoya qilish uchun tuzatuvchi va profilaktik harakatlarni amalga oshirishga imkon berdi.^[227] Biroq, ichida Boerne shahri va Flores (1997),^[228] Sud Kongressning Qonunchilik hujjatini Bo'limga binoan qabul qilmasligi mumkin deb hisoblab, uning ijro etuvchi vakolatlarini qisqartirdi 5-modda o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish huquqlarini aniq belgilaydi yoki izohlaydi.^[223] Sud qaroriga ko'ra qonunchilik ushbu bo'limga muvofiq amal qiladi Faqatgina odamning o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish huquqiga etkazilgan zarar va Kongressning ushbu jarohatni oldini olish yoki bartaraf etish uchun qabul qilgan vositalari o'rtasida "muvofiqlik va mutanosiblik" mavjud bo'lsa.^[229]

Oliy sudning tanlangan ishlari

Fuqarolik

Imtiyozlar yoki immunitetlar

Birlashtirish

Moddiy jarayon

Teng himoya

Felon huquqidan mahrum etish

• 1974: Richardson va Ramirez
• 1985: Hunter v Andervudga qarshi

Majburiy ijro etish kuchi

Shuningdek qarang

• Jus soli
• Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining konstitutsiyaviy jinoiy protsedurasi
• Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining mehnat qonuni

Adabiyotlar

Izohlar

Iqtiboslar

Bibliografiya

• Foner, Erik (1988). Qayta qurish: Amerikaning tugallanmagan inqilobi, 1863–1877. HarperCollins. ISBN  9780062035868. Oldindan ko'rish.
• Goldstone, Lawrence (2011). Tabiatan tengsiz: Oliy sud tomonidan teng huquqlarga xiyonat qilish, 1865-1903. Walker & Company. ISBN  9780802717924. Oldindan ko'rish.
• Graber, Mark A. (2012 yil noyabr). "Qo'shish bilan ayirish ?: O'n uchinchi va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishlar". Columbia Law Review. 112 (7): 1501–1549. JSTOR  41708157. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015 yil 17-noyabrda. PDF.
• Soifer, Aviam (2012 yil noyabr). "Federal himoya, paternalizm va ixtiyoriy pionatsiyani deyarli unutilgan taqiq". Columbia Law Review. 112 (7): 1607–1639. JSTOR  41708160. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015 yil 17-noyabrda. PDF.

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• Bogen, Devid S. (2003 yil 30 aprel). Imtiyozlar va immunitetlar: Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasi uchun qo'llanma. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN  9780313313479. Olingan 19 mart, 2013.
• Garber, Mark A. (2011). "Old so'z: plyus yoki minus bitta: o'n uchinchi va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishlar". Merilend qonuni sharhi. 71 (1): 12–20. PDF.

• Shuningdek qarang: Simpozium: Merilend konstitutsiyaviy qonuni Shmuz ning maxsus soni Merilend qonuni sharhi.

• Xelbruk, Stiven P. (1998). Fridmenlar, 14-tuzatish va qurol ko'tarish huquqi, 1866-1876. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN  9780275963316. Olingan 29 mart, 2013. da Questia
• tenBroek, Yakobus (1951 yil iyun). "Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n uchinchi tuzatish: bekor qilish uchun kontsumatsiya va o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish uchun kalit". Kaliforniya qonunchiligini ko'rib chiqish. 39 (2): 171–203. doi:10.2307/3478033. JSTOR  3478033. PDF.
• Makkonnell, Maykl V. (1995 yil may). "Originalizm va degregatsiya qarorlari". Virjiniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish. 81 (4): 947–1140. doi:10.2307/1073539. JSTOR  1073539.

• Makkonnelga javob: Klarman, Maykl J. (1995 yil oktyabr). "Javob: jigarrang, o'ziga xoslik va konstitutsiyaviy nazariya: professor Makkonnelga javob ". Virjiniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish. 81 (7): 1881–1936. doi:10.2307/1073643. JSTOR  1073643.

• Klarmanga javob: Makkonnell, Maykl V. (1995 yil oktyabr). "Javob: Braunning originalistik asoslari: professor Klarmanga javob ". Virjiniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish. 81 (7): 1937–1955. doi:10.2307/1073644. JSTOR  1073644.

Tashqi havolalar

• "Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'zgartirishlar" (PDF). GPO kirish. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi (PDF) 2005 yil 18 sentyabrda. Olingan 11 sentyabr, 2005. (PDF, o'zgartirish matni va ratifikatsiya sanalarini taqdim etgan holda)
• CRS Izohlangan konstitutsiya: o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish
• Kongress kutubxonasidagi o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish va tegishli manbalar
• Kongressda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishlar bo'yicha munozaralar, Kongressdagi munozaralarning stenogrammasini taqdim etadi.