how does the 14th amendment violate states rights?
89503
The main idea behind the 14th ammendment was an "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into all of the state constitutions as well.\n\nHere is the crucial line:\n\n"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nSo clearly states are losing the rights to adapt the Bill of Rights in their own way, but personally I think this is a good and necessary thing.
982820
Jus soli, the automatic granting of citizenship based on place of birth, was a well-established part of British common law at the time the colonies formed the United States and, along with most other common law it was enshrined in the laws and practice of the new country. The Supreme Court said, "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution."\n\nThe fourteenth amendment merely put this practice into writing. The interpretation of the amendment has fine tuned it somewhat, so that people not under the jurisdiction of the US, even if born in its borders, are not automatically citizens. However, very few people can be in our borders and not under US jurisdiction.
589551
I guess it is against the law. \nThe drinking age state laws are protected by Constitution. The 21st amendment basically gave states free reign for the drinking laws.[1]\nBut for gambling there is no such amendment, and 14th amendment should apply: giving people "equal protection under laws", so people under 21 but over 18 cannot legally be treated differently from everyone else. So there might be a constitutional case against such law.\n\nSo I suggest you bring a law suit to fix it. Then again the law suit will probably take WAY more then 3 years to litigate, so you might as well just wait to hit 21.
592096
Dear Friend,\n\nYes.  But the only "person" who can violate the First Amendment is the government (federal or state).  If a state official, acting under color of law, deprives you of your First Amendment rights, you can sue under what's called a Section 1983 claim.\n\nBut don't sue Godly George W.!\n\nYours in Him,\nFrancesois
635156
Neither abortion nor euthanasia are EXPLICITLY mentioned in the constitution.\nSupreme Court, however, finds justification for these in 9th and 14th amendments\n\n9th amendment says:\n"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."\n\nThis means tha people have more Rights then those that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.\n\n14th amendment says:\n"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nSo if you interpret abortion and euthanasia to be "privileges of citizens" then No state can make laws against them.
102871
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states:  No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States. Not allowing a student to go to a closer school or a school that will offer the student more opportunities was unfair and a direct violation of the amendment.  Accorging to Chief Justice Earl Warren:\n“We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?  We believe that itdoes… We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.  Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the lase guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”\n~I once did a paper on this I hope it helps.  Remember simpily seperate but equal is not equal.
979993
"The 14th amendment to the US Constitution applies equally to both gay and straight citizens.  Thus, the government does not have the right to enact laws that ban marriage between individuals based on their sexual orientation."\n\nThe 14th also bans states from enacting laws that restrict civil liberties.  Many people argue that marriage is a civil liberty.  \n\nYou can continue with the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy and under the theory of separation of church and state within the Establishment Clause (1st amendment - US Constitution) the government also has no right to impose the Biblical will of the church on the citizenry.  \n\nChurches are free to define marriage within their own systems and can certainly decline to marry same sex couples.  The government should be required to maintain a non-religious marriage system that is open and applies equally to all.
22849
Article 6 Paragraph 2 of the body of the constitution states...\n"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be boundthereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state notwithstanding."\n\nPretty much means that whatever law the federal government creates it overrides any other law created by both the states and the senate.\nKind of a scary precedent when you think of it.\n\nnow this may not directly answer your question but its a start, you should read the constitution yourself, because it was creaded in a vague reference to be interpreted, everyone interperates things differently.
883181
The Amendment in practice emancipated only the slaves of Delaware and Kentucky, as everywhere else the slaves had been freed by state action or by the federal government's Emancipation Proclamation.\n\nThe thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on January 31, 1865.
1060997
Convicted felons can be deprived of certain rights that otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. This is an ancient and accepted legal tradition known as "civil death."  \n\nThis deprivation of rights is limited however to those things which are construed as being privileges of citizenship rather than fundamental human rights. Gun ownership, voting, the practice of certain professions, and holding civic office are the most prominent of such privileges.
163448
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
841380
Entirely on the Constitution, but with the following in mind:\n\n(1) Most judges today ignore the 9th and 10th amendment. The powers not EXPLICITLY granted the federal goernment are reserved for the states and the people respectively. So, for example, since abortion or what are oddly called "reproductive rights" are not mentioned in the US Constitution (and mentioning the 14th amendment when ruling on Roe v.Wade was a stretch), I would say that the state has the right to make laws forbidding or allowing abortion. The federal government simply has no role, just like they do not have a role in states passing laws about the death penalty.\n(2) I would reject the "living constitution" bs many judges talk about. The living constitution theory of jurisprudence says it makes the constitution "flexible", in reality, it makes it very rigid by allowing judges to nullify the other two branches of the government. The constitution was designed to make the legislative branch, the one "closest to the people" the one which makes the laws. Then comes the president who ENFORCES those laws, and then comes the judiciary whose job is to INTREPRET those laws and to intrepret whether they are being enforced correctly. The judiciary isn't there to make new laws by simply talking about "living constitution" thwarting the will of the people.
443374
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down laws against miscegination, because "marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." This right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but the 9th Amendment specifically states that rights not mentioned are still held by the people.\n\nSince marriage is a fundamental right, the state should have a compelling reason to deny that right to any particular group. For instance, it can ban incestual marriage, because it causes birth defects and it is impossible to tell if there is some sort of coercion involved. There is no compelling reason to ban gay marriage. It does not harm the community nor does it harm children nor does it affect churches' ability to protect marriage, since any law allowing gay marriage would not require churches to recognize them. If there is no compelling reason to ban it, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as well as the fundamental nature of the right to marry, require that same sex marriages be allowed.
16793
It has to do with the Second Amendment giving ONLY the states and NOT the Federal Government the right to regulate a militia and to the extension of gun ownership.  \n\nAmendment II \n\nA 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.
268555
In the Gideon decision, the court held the 6th amendment, applicable to the states throught the 14th amendment (very important tenet), required states to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants. It's technically an equal protection issue.
205674
Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights was more of a contract between the states and the federal government.
804687
The thirteenth amendment.\n13th amendment- 1865\nEnd of slavery\nThis amendment ended slavery in the United States.  Slavery was no longer legal in the U.S. or any land that belonged to the U.S.\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Bill of Rights:\nhttp://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm