Powell v. Alabama (1932)
When in early 1932 nine African-American males were accused of rape by two white females, each was immediately put on trial with access to his lawyer only immediately before each trial. After a series of one-day trials, all except one were sentenced to death. Appealing on the grounds of inadequate representation, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled against them 6-1, but the United States Supreme Court sided with the boys, finding that their convictions were unconstitutional in a 7-2 decision written by Justice George Sutherland. The Due Process Clause of this amendment was the main law applied in the case. This case is the precedent in the requirement of adequate legal council in capital trials.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
This landmark case overturned Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, it was found that "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal and therefore a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
When Cleveland Police received a tip that Dollree Mapp was harboring a bombing suspect in her house, they forced their way in without a warrant. They didn't find what they were looking for, but they did find a chest of pornographic paraphernalia, illegal under an Ohio law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. When convicted under that law, Mapp appealed on the grounds that the evidence was illegally obtained. When the Ohio Supreme Court found against her, she appealed the United States Supreme Court, which ruled for her 6-3 in an opinion written by Justice Tom C. Clark. Clark and the majority found that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment can be used against the States, a result not obtained in Wolf v. Colorado twelve years earlier. This case significantly tightened the restrictions on what law enforcement can do without a warrant.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Vagrant Clarence Gideon was reported to have been the culprit in a break-in a Panama City, Florida. When arrested and charged with larceny, he immediately requested legal council, which was subsequently denied, as Florida law only allowed for public council for a defendant in a capital case under the aforementioned Powell. When convicted and sentenced to five years in the State penitentiary, Gideon used the prison library, a pencil, and prison stationary to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. When certiorari was granted, he was assigned future Justice Abe Fortas as an attorney. They decided unanimously for Gideon, whose conviction was then overturned for lack of effective council. The Court decided that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the right to council, was a right applied to the states in a similar justification to Mapp.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Estelle Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and opened up a contraception clinic to test the Connecticut law which banned the use of contraceptives. She was arrested and convicted under the law, which provided for only a $100 fine, and subsequently appealed. Despite an appellate court and the Connecticut Supreme Court upholding her conviction, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction and struck down the law in a 7-2 ruling written by Justice William O. Douglas. They found that the law was unconstitutional under Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part, "...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." This case was a major precedent for the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This ruling has quite possibly affected American culture more than any other case ever. Ernesto Miranda was in 1963 arrested for robbery, but while in custody confessed under pressure to raping an 18-year-old girl two days prior. During appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court after conviction, it was ruled that his confession was valid evidence as he had failed to request an attorney. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, it was ruled in a 5-4 decision that Miranda's confession was invalid as he has not been informed of his right to an attorney, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. It was Chief Justice Warren's majority opinion that gave birth to the now-ubiquitous Miranda warning, "You have the right to remain silent..." From the majority opinion:
"
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Mildred and Richard Loving, a Virginia couple, married in 1958 in the District of Columbia, in order to avoid prosecution in Virginia. Why? They were a mixed-race couple, and such marriages were illegal under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. When charged with miscengenation, each pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison with the sentence suspended for twenty-five years provided that they leave Virginia. After they left Virginia, the ACLU filed a motion on their behalf to vacate the judgment. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously declared the law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
With five of the Court's justices arriving at the same conclusion by different means, the Court decided in a 5-4 decision that Georgia's death penalty laws were unconstitutional. Justice Potter Stewart in particular used the Fourteenth Amendment as his basis for declaring Georgia's death penalty statute unconstitutional. From Stewart's opinion:
"
These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed. My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race... But racial discrimination has not been proved, and I put it to one side. I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."
In other words, he felt that the prosecutors in Georgia were not applying the statute fairly, as not all of those eligible for a death sentence were actually sentenced to death, and the unlucky few were being denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Court overturned Furman four years later in Gregg v. Georgia.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
In a decision that has affected Americans second only to Miranda, the Court found in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun that a Texas law prohibiting assisting a woman in aborting a pregnancy was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, violating her due process rights. They asserted that prohibiting such actions violated an implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. This case has effected one of the most bitter and vicious political divides today, but since this case, a woman has had a fundamental right to abort her pregnancy.
United States v. Virginia (1996)
The public Virginia Military Institute, since its inception in 1839, had been an all-male school. Feminist activists had quite a problem with the fact that a public school was limited to one gender. In a 7-1 decision (Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself from the case, presumably because his son was attending VMI at the time) written by Justice Ginsburg with Justice Scalia dissenting, the Court held that denying women admission into a public school was unconstitutional and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. VMI was the last all-male public school in the country.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
In one of the most publicized cases in recent history, the Court held that the conviction of John Lawrence under Texas's anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Kennedy with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting, the majority found that Texas furthered no state interest by keeping and enforcing the law and that the defendants were denied their right to due process when Texas disallowed them from participating in sodomy; they found that Texas's rationale for the law was based on a Western dislike of homosexuality rather than a legitimate state interest. In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor found that rather than being denied their right to participate in sodomy under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they were denied this under the Equal Protection Clause, asserting that they deserved the right to participate in sodomy given that heterosexuals were allowed to have sexual relations, but not homosexuals under Texas law. At the time of this decision, sodomy was illegal in 14 states, including Utah.
As you can see, this is one of the most important amendments to our nation. Without it, we may have been denied all of these progressive reforms outlined in the above cases. This amendment may become more important to we liberals in the future, as its contents seem to allow for a more open definition of marriage. The anniversary of the promulgation of this amendment should renew our efforts to work toward a case in which we may be able to overturn the injustice that is DOMA.
Update (5:40 PM):
How fitting that this come on this particular day... Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT03) has today announced that he is opposed to the Fourteenth Amendment. Well, not really, but if he isn't opposed, he certainly isn't aware of its existence. For more, see Curtis Haring's post at Blue in Red Zion.
Become a fan of the Fourteenth Amendment on Facebook at this page.
Comment below or e-mail me at jay@jayhutchinson.com. Follow me on Twitter at twitter.jayhutchinson.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment