# The Fourteenth Amendment: What about Section 2? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977 "2018-09-07T21:40:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2018, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/21 "2018-09-12T13:18:26Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The USA is only a democracy _because_ of some of those rulings. > > Large swathes of the USA were ruled by straight-up dictatorships within living memory. Legislatures were selected by rotten boroughs in the same time. Even if your reading is 100% correct (which I doubt), the USA is an emerging democracy, and sometimes the early phases of the transition to democracy are…messy. I don’t dispute that it reaches the “right” result. If anything, this is a slam on my own judicial philosophy. A “living constitutionalist” could look at this and say that we have “evolved.” For a Justice like Scalia to support Loving and anti-Affirmative Action programs on 14th Amendment grounds seems to be against the text of the Constitution which directly permits discrimination based upon race and gender. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/22 "2018-09-12T21:33:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I wish we could address the substance instead of some of the veiled implications that I am a racist or sexist. The substance is that your approach and attitude are incorrect, and your reason for asking is not a valid one. You’re (figuratively) bringing a frivolous case. Nothing about racism or sexism required. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2018, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/23 "2018-09-12T22:29:38Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Similarly, while the Seventh Amendment is still relevant, “the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars” is something of an historical curiosity, since $20 is no longer considered a significant sum. Suing someone over something valued at $20 won’t get you a trial by jury. In fact, your filing fees would be greater than the amount at stake. Just to clarify this point, the Seventh Amendment means what it says: as long as federal jurisdiction otherwise exists, any suit at law for damages in federal court can be tried to a jury, as long as the amount in controversy is over the now-minimal $20 threshold. Certainly, the parties can waive a jury and accept trial before a judge if they wish. This is one of the reasons the Bill of Rights has not been completely incorporated against the states. Incorporating the Seventh Amendment could potentially impose an expensive obligation on state courts’ civil-case systems. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2018, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/24 "2018-09-12T23:56:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Any revolution destroys the rule of law. We have a legislature for results oriented thinking. When the judiciary does it, we do not have a democracy, but a rule from nine lawyers. > > If an absolute monarch does something positive, that does not make monarchy a positive form of government. Rule by judicial fiat is an anathema to our concept of rule by the people. Nonsense. The judiciary do not rule by fiat or decree or anything else. They have no power to enact a single law. Their only power is to interpret the laws that are enacted by the legislature. You may not like or agree with their interpretations. But that doesn’t mean they’re making things up out of nothing. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/25 "2018-09-13T06:01:56Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > The substance is that your approach and attitude are incorrect, and your reason for asking is not a valid one. You’re (figuratively) bringing a frivolous case. Nothing about racism or sexism required. You keep making that bald declaration in different ways. Again, please address the substance of my argument. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/26 "2018-09-13T07:41:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Again, please address the substance of my argument. A number of people have addressed the substance of your argument by telling you that it’s wrong. The fact that it’s possible for you to break a law doesn’t mean that you’re allowed to break a law. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/27 "2018-09-13T10:58:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > A number of people have addressed the substance of your argument by telling you that it’s wrong. The fact that it’s possible for you to break a law doesn’t mean that you’re allowed to break a law. Then nobody has addressed the question because until the 15th amendment was ratified, it was perfectly legal for a state to deny the right to vote to male persons based upon race and many did so. The 14th Amendment failed to provide that protection. No state was “breaking the law” by denying the right to vote to blacks or else the 15th Amendment would not have been necessary, just two short years later. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2018, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/28 "2018-09-13T11:11:41Z")
Proving strict necessity is not a part of amending the Constitution, so the fact that it happened does not mean it was necessary. There were plenty of people who believed that the 24th Amendment was unnecessary, but nevertheless supported its ratification. (And indeed, the Supreme Court did take their side and strike down the remaining poll taxes just two years later.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2018, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/29 "2018-09-14T09:54:26Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Proving strict necessity is not a part of amending the Constitution, so the fact that it happened does not mean it was necessary. There were plenty of people who believed that the 24th Amendment was unnecessary, but nevertheless supported its ratification. (And indeed, the Supreme Court did take their side and strike down the remaining poll taxes just two years later.) Cite that this is in any way analogous? Again, we had Congressman, even those supporting universal male suffrage, lamenting on the floor that this was all they could hope to get out of the 14th Amendment. Dangit, we just cannot get these states to sign on if it means blacks vote, but we can get this limitation of representation provision. The rights of women to vote were not discussed and assumed to be proper, even after enactment of the 14th Amendment. Two years later nobody said, “Well, we think this is just a bunch of surplusage, but, hey, nothing else to do, so let’s just pass the 15th Amendment to make sure.” Given that, clearly the drafters had something else in mind for equal protection and due process. You have to admit that if we were not talking about something to modern sensibilities that seems so basic and decent, my argument would be bulletproof and yours would be silly. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/30 "2018-09-18T15:43:43Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is not a historical curiosity or at least nobody has shown that it is. It casts light on how the terms in Section 1 are to be **construment**. Again, nobody has addressed this except to say that the Supreme Court has held otherwise (which I agree, but without any support) and that progress would have taken longer. I also agree, but the law should be followed even if it produces a bad result; when the law produces a bad result, we can change it. If we cannot change it, then a majority thinks it is not a bad result. > > I wish we could address the substance instead of some of the veiled implications that I am a racist or sexist. Is “construment” a typo, or a word that you law-talking guys tend to be familiar with? If the former, please provide the word you intended that we read. If the latter, please do a better job of elucidating wtf you’re talking about in that sentence. TIA. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2018, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977/31 "2018-09-18T19:13:05Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Is “construment” a typo, or a word that you law-talking guys tend to be familiar with? > > If the former, please provide the word you intended that we read. > > If the latter, please do a better job of elucidating wtf you’re talking about in that sentence. > > TIA. Sorry “construed.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fourteenth-amendment-what-about-section-2/820977.md?page=1)