Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014[edit]

This page is semi-protected so anonymous folks like myself cannot edit it. I think some thought should be put into the sidebar next to each of the constitutional amendments. It would be convenient for the sidebar to identify the date on which the amendment was ratified. It may also be convenient to know the date it was submitted to congress, the date it was passed by congress, and the number of votes that were cast for and against. (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


I would like the sidebar for this article to have a heading for the 14th amendment. Under that heading I would like to see:

Approved by Senate: June 8, 1866
  Yes votes: 33
  No votes: 11
Approved by House: June 13, 1866
  Yes votes: 138
  No votes: 36
Ratified: July 9, 1868
Time to ratify: 757 days (2 years, 26 days)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a pretty substantial change to institute and, if implemented, should be done uniformly across all Constitutional Amendment articles, so I wouldn't be comfortable doing this without a broader consensus first. Personally, I think this is a level of detail not really needed at an infobox level when the information is contained within the article, but I'll leave this request open for a bit to see if any editor disagrees with me. (In addition, the current sidebar is just a uniform template that is identical across all of the articles, not a customizable infobox like you would see in a biographical or geographical article, so there would probably need to be some template work done as well, which I am definitely not qualified for.) --ElHef (Meep?) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Section 2 and disenfranchisement[edit]

The text formerly stated that section 2 to 4 seldom or never were bases for litigation. I've just done a little work with the felony disenfranchisement situation in the US; and it seems to me as if the exceptions in section 2 are considered as providing the main constitutional ground for this. (I refer to ..., except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,...; so does the Supreme Court opinion in Hunter v. Underwood, and they do it as if indeed this is the constitutional ground for the exceptions.) There has been a few Supreme Court decisions through the years about disenfranchisement; and I suppose that section 2 is involved in more of them.

This has some importance, since at least in Hunter v. Underwood, the cause for disenfranchisement in the test cases was misdemeanour, not felony; and the state authorities referred to their right to disenfranchise people convicted for "crimes", and claimed state authority over which crimes to consider.

I therefore modified the text a little, mentioning disenfranchisement. JoergenB (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I now also have glanced at Richardson v. Ramirez. The plaintiffs invoke the first section, but the Supreme Court majority opinion claims that the exceptions in the second section are equally valid - for felony. JoergenB (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)