This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Based on this decision should we include a new section or should we simply add material to the Due Process and Equal Protection sections? SMP0328. (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me it's more of a substantive due process decision as it employed none of the tiers of review one finds in EP cases. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It does refer to the "fundamental right to marry" throughout the opinion, but it bases that on both clauses. I don't think we could justify referring only to the substantive due process material. SMP0328. (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To me, it seems more that he used the same rationale as Lawrence, and then slapped on EP for good measure without really explaining why it was necessary. Even if it relies on both, the SDP rationale is doing all the heavy lift work. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(a) She's a law professor. Go check her About Me.
(b) I wasn't aware that I needed a reliable source to make a point on a talk page. You presume too much in that I was offering it as a source cite for the article when I merely offered it as a source to demonstrate that capable authorities have reached conclusions similar to my own, and that we can likely expect more to do so. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Another blog, though it might be reliable. The about page does not indicate whether they are fact checking each other, whether each article is that own authors POV, etc. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
SCOTUSblog is a reliable source. Blogs are not per se unreliable. Wikipolicy calls them "questionable". SCOTUSblog is cited in many articles in and out of Wikipedia. The external link I have provided is to an article that is a description of the decision. It is not an opinion article. It should be considered as reliable as would an article from the news media. SMP0328. (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The relevant policy in that case is the following quotation: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. I'm simply exercising caution since I don't know whether their expert work has been republished. ;) --Izno (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I did check the about page, which fails one of the requirements for RS (in that she isn't fact checked given that it's her blog, though I'm sure she's authoritative on the subject).
I was sure opinion about the critical elements of the opinion are published, but when someone is grabbing examples it is easier now to point out sourceability. It might have been the case you did mean that to be used, so I explicitly wanted to deny that particular source as acceptable. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is "she"? SCOTUSblog is not owned by a woman and the article was written by a man. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Please review the indentations--this response regards the Althouse blog article. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to the original question, I think it's best that it be mentioned in both the Due Process Clause section and the Equal Protection Clause section. No need to be repetitive, but the reasoning under each clause can be discussed under each section. That's likely how we'd handle it if there were a case that held something was unconstitutional under two parts of the constitution that had their own separate Wikipedia articles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the wording of the first paragraph to put Obergefell v. Hodges alongside Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore as one of the landmark cases for which the Fourteenth Amendment formed the basis, rather than mentioning Obergefell v. Hodges separately from those other cases. The first paragraph currently ends with the following sentences:
... The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the amendment was used to strike down same-sex marriage bans throughout the United States.
I suggest the following:
... The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion; Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election; and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.
First, the phrase is not in the Fourteenth Amendment in the manner that you are claiming. It goes to who is a citizen, not who has rights. Nothing excludes aliens. GregJackPBoomer! 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations. By requiring potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both senator Howard and Senator Trumbull, authors of the 14th Amendment, were lawyers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3766:A740:5D93:88A7:7E17:624F (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The article is currently claiming that Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first in American history that Congress was able to override and even provides a citation for this, but John Tyler and Franklin Pierce also had vetoes overridden. Perhaps whoever made the edit rather meant to say that it was the first of Johnson's vetoes to be overridden. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Good catch. I have removed that sentence. The citation establishes that Johnson's veto was overridden and so it remains in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)