Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, prohibits state governments from denying citizens the “equal protection of the laws.” Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by this equal protection clause remains unclear, all interpreters agree that the framers’ immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration, which was echoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, was designed primarily to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be denied citizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not provide Congress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnson’s veto, supporters of the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
第一段：14修正案禁止政府否認(rèn)法律對(duì)公民的平等保護(hù)“equal protection of the laws” 雖然不太明白提案者這么說(shuō)的具體意義，但所有解釋都認(rèn)同提案者的直接目的是為Civil Right Acts提供支持，這個(gè)Act的內(nèi)容是保證所有出生于美國(guó)的并遵從美國(guó)法律的公民的市民權(quán)citizenship。14修正案重提Act的內(nèi)容主要是為了反對(duì)法院Super Court的“黑人應(yīng)該沒有citizenship”這一判決。Act被總統(tǒng)否定了，他認(rèn)為13修正案中廢除了奴隸制，但沒有向國(guó)會(huì)提供將citizenship和equal protection擴(kuò)展到黑人的權(quán)力authority。盡管國(guó)會(huì)又否決了總統(tǒng)的否定，Act的支持者們?nèi)匀蝗ふ褹ct的憲法基礎(chǔ)constitutional foundations，這樣就有了14修正案。
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that its framers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list of specific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbids organized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for the first eight decades of the amendment’s existence, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, for example, the Court invented the “state action” limitation, which asserts that “private” decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercial businesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
第二段：14修正案所用的broad language強(qiáng)烈地表明了提案者的目的并不是要提出誰(shuí)的權(quán)力應(yīng)該受保護(hù)的名單，而是要在憲法中建立建立這樣一個(gè)原則：任何一個(gè)個(gè)人都不應(yīng)該被當(dāng)做低等階層對(duì)待。但是14修正案提出后的80年間，法院對(duì)它的解釋違背了它的這個(gè)平等的想法。舉例:1883年的Civil Rights Cases中法院發(fā)明了“state action”這樣的一個(gè)限制，將public accommodations and other commercial businesses所有者的四人決定孤立于14修正案的法律平等保護(hù)之外。
After the Second World War, a judicial climate more hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two doctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended the amendment’s reach. First, the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation that employed a “suspect classification,” meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could be construed as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to other, nonracial forms of discrimination, for while some justices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race to be constitutionally disfavored, most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracial discriminations, sexual discrimination in particular, are “suspect” and deserve this heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second, the Court relaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment, bringing new forms of private conduct within the amendment’s reach.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, prohibits state governments from denying citizens the “equal protection of the laws.” Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by this equal protection clause remains unclear, all interpreters agree that the framers’ immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration, which was echoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, was designed primarily to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be denied citizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not provide Congress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnson’s veto, supporters of the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
第一段：14修正案禁止政府否認(rèn)法律對(duì)公民的平等保護(hù)“equal protection of the laws” 雖然不太明白提案者這么說(shuō)的具體意義，但所有解釋都認(rèn)同提案者的直接目的是為Civil Right Acts提供支持，這個(gè)Act的內(nèi)容是保證所有出生于美國(guó)的并遵從美國(guó)法律的公民的市民權(quán)citizenship。14修正案重提Act的內(nèi)容主要是為了反對(duì)法院Super Court的“黑人應(yīng)該沒有citizenship”這一判決。Act被總統(tǒng)否定了，他認(rèn)為13修正案中廢除了奴隸制，但沒有向國(guó)會(huì)提供將citizenship和equal protection擴(kuò)展到黑人的權(quán)力authority。盡管國(guó)會(huì)又否決了總統(tǒng)的否定，Act的支持者們?nèi)匀蝗ふ褹ct的憲法基礎(chǔ)constitutional foundations，這樣就有了14修正案。
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that its framers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list of specific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbids organized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for the first eight decades of the amendment’s existence, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, for example, the Court invented the “state action” limitation, which asserts that “private” decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercial businesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
第二段：14修正案所用的broad language強(qiáng)烈地表明了提案者的目的并不是要提出誰(shuí)的權(quán)力應(yīng)該受保護(hù)的名單，而是要在憲法中建立建立這樣一個(gè)原則：任何一個(gè)個(gè)人都不應(yīng)該被當(dāng)做低等階層對(duì)待。但是14修正案提出后的80年間，法院對(duì)它的解釋違背了它的這個(gè)平等的想法。舉例:1883年的Civil Rights Cases中法院發(fā)明了“state action”這樣的一個(gè)限制，將public accommodations and other commercial businesses所有者的四人決定孤立于14修正案的法律平等保護(hù)之外。
After the Second World War, a judicial climate more hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two doctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended the amendment’s reach. First, the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation that employed a “suspect classification,” meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could be construed as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to other, nonracial forms of discrimination, for while some justices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race to be constitutionally disfavored, most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracial discriminations, sexual discrimination in particular, are “suspect” and deserve this heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second, the Court relaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment, bringing new forms of private conduct within the amendment’s reach.