Abstract
The paper analyzes the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, especially its first section and the clauses contained in it: the citizenship clause, the privileges or immunities clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause and the historically variable interpretation of those by the Supreme Court, the decisions of which often accounted for fundamental changes in the perception of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Quite frequently, it was the Supreme Court that stood behind the significant social changes throughout history, whether in the area of racial segregation that still lasted for many years in the United States even after the end of the civil war, or later in the area of the right to privacy. The paper also deals with the approach of the dominant methods of interpretation to the Fourteenth Amendment, it compares the different approaches and the resulting interpretative conclusions. A special attention is dedicated to the contradictory interpretations of the originalist theory and the Living Constitution theory, the conflict between the advocates of these two lasting until today and still constituting an important part of the constitutional law debate in the United States.
Highlights
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Its Interpretation by Main Constitutional Interpretive Methods The paper analyzes the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, especially its first section and the clauses contained in it: the citizenship clause, the privileges or immunities clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause and the historically variable interpretation of those by the Supreme Court, the decisions of which often accounted for fundamental changes in the perception of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment
It was the Supreme Court that stood behind the significant social changes throughout history, whether in the area of racial segregation that still lasted for many years in the United States even after the end of the civil war, or later in the area of the right to privacy
The paper deals with the approach of the dominant methods of interpretation to the Fourteenth Amendment, it compares the different approaches and the resulting interpretative conclusions
Summary
Jaký je účel Ústavy? Pokud se pokoušíme o výklad ústavního textu, tuto otázku nelze opomenout. Účelem a smyslem Ústavy je tedy nejen vymezení státní struktury, ale také ochrana těch práv a svobod, které jsou dle jejích tvůrců natolik významné a esenciální, že nelze dopustit, aby byla, byť demokratickým rozhodnutím většiny, menšině upírána. Touto zábranou má být právě Ústava, jež v sobě uchovává přirozená práva a brání jejich odnětí jak ze strany prosté většiny společnosti, tak státu samého. Avšak i pokud je vykladači známa role Ústavy a její funkce, stále před ním stojí úkol zjistit, kde staví její text onu pomyslnou hranici, již nelze překročit a u níž končí pravomoc většiny přijímat rozhodnutí, dopadající na menšinu, neboť text Ústavy nehovoří vždy natolik jednoznačně, aby o způsobu jeho aplikace na projednávanou otázku nemohlo býti pochyb. Jak nalézt hranici mezi nimi je podstatou „madisonského dilematu“ a je také samým jádrem sporu mezi jednotlivými výkladovými teoriemi
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
