FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The Four teenth Amendment of the constitution of the United States became a part of the organic law July 28, 1868, and its importance entitles it to special mention.
The resolution of congress proposing the amendment was adopted June 16, 1866, 14 St. L. 358. On July 20, 1868, Secretary Se ward issued a proclamation reciting the rati fication of the amendment by twenty-nine states, of which two had by legislative ac tion attempted to withdraw such ratification (which attempted withdrawal was declared to .of doubtful and uncertain effect), and declaring the ratification of the amendment if the withdrawing resolutions were of no effect. 15 St. L. 706. On July 21, 1868, a concurrent resolution was adopted by congress, reciting the ratification by the twenty-nine states (making no mention of the efforts at with drawal by two• states, which were included in those enumerated) and declaring the amendment to be a part of the constitution and directing its promulgation as such. Ac cordingly, July 28, 1868, Secretary Seward issued a second proclamation, reciting the resolution of congress and the proceedings of the state legislatures in detail, with dates, and certifying the adoption of the amend ment. 15 St. L. 708.
Scope Of the Amendment. Summarizing the several sections of the amendment in or der, the first is that of the most general ap plication, and which has mainly engaged the attention of the courts. It creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states (see CinzErf); forbids the making or enforcement by any state of any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (see PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) ; and secures all "persons" against any state action which is either dep rivation of life, liberty, or, property without due process of law or denial of the equal pro tection of the laws (see DUE PROCESS OF LAW; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; LIBERTY; PROPERTY; PERSON).
The last clause secures against state ac tion one of the most comprehensive guaran ties of the fundamental rights which, in the Vth Amendment as construed by the courts, was secured against action by the federal government.
The other sections are of special applica tion and concern themselves with the results of the civil war.
Section 2 provides for the apportionment of representatives among the states according to population, with the proviso that if any state shall abridge the right to vote "except for participation in rebellion, or other crime," the basis of representation shall be reduced. The question of the bearing of this provision upon the constitutional or statutory qualifi cations of voters so designed as to discrim inate in fact, though not in terms, against any particular class of voters, has not been judicially settled.
It has been decided that this section does not amend Art. II of the constitution, under which the state legislatures have exclusive power to prescribe the manner of appointing electors of president and vice president, and a state law providing for their election by districts is valid ; McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 3, 36 L. Ed. 869, affirming 92 Mich. 377, 52 N. W. 469, 16 L. It. A. 475, 31 Am. St. Rep. 587.
Section 3 provides for the exclusion from certain federal and state offices of persons who, having taken the oath to support the constitution of the United States, had en gaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. This disability is made removable by congress by, a two-thirds vote of each house. Whether the creation of this disability was a bar to other punishment was argued in the case of Jefferson Davis, Chase 1, Fed. Cas. No. 3, 621a. The judges differed in opinion, the circuit justice, Chase, being of opinion that the provision of the XIVth Amendment did operate as a bar, and the district judge, Underwood, that it did not. The question was accordingly certified to the Supreme Court, but the matter was not considered there, the indictments having been dismissed after the general amnesty proclamation of December, 1868. So, as the report of the case, supra, concluded, "the certificate [of disagreement] rests among the records of the Supreme Court, undisturbed by a single motion for either a hearing or a dis missal." Id.