14.7: Discussion

Romantic accounts of constructing the U.S. Constitution are portrayed as James Madison and a Congress of likeminded men that penned into flaming gold a grand and glorious document creating liberty for all. The pinnacle of liberty, equality, and freedom of citizens was crafted within the four corners of this document standing as the guiding light for the future of not only America, but all free societies of the world. Subscribing to the perfunctory obliteration of actual events is to ignore the significance of the attending decrees referred to as Amendments. As America matured, the grand and glorious document was modified to meet social obligations. First the tenuous infancy of this Union was insecurely structured upon frail pillars of an unsure constitutional framework. The great social experiment begins notwithstanding the ambition of the framers, who knew what would work to unite 13 differing colonial self-serving interests.

Slavery was a bitter pill for many of the framers but to address it during the initial framing of the Constitution was assuredly a receipt for disaster (Avlon, 2017). In order to gain southern states assurances of ratification of the initial document, the Slave, Negro, Black man was expressly denied inclusion into the American fabric. At least as a free person. Paradoxly the slave was considered chattel used as a bargaining chip to establish national unity expressing equality. Slavery was not limited to the black man in this country. Most if not all immigrant populations as a rite of passage to citizenship were exposed to some form of slavery.

Conspicuously absent from this examination of the 14th Amendment and social policy is the term “Diversity”. America, although much better during contemporary periods, has not fully embraced diversity. As illustrated in the previous sections, those of diverse cultures have predominately been relegated to the labor class and has experienced a glass ceiling relative to power and privilege.

The 14th Amendment and public policy is provided for your review in a historical perspective in preparation of the final assessment. The examination of materials as submitted provides a window to review historical events in the context of the courts application of the 14th Amendment and constructing or deconstructing of public policy. The court is often looked upon as the righteous vein of American life. The concept of oversight by an authoritative watchful eye to gain compliance of government rather than its citizenry is within the purview of the courts. The court has often fallen in line with public opinion but this appears more fortuitous than planned dependent upon prominence of the decision (Giles, Blackstone, and Vining, 2008). The discerning eye of the beholder gazing into social issues at differing times of history provides a look at how or why the courts may have ruled as they did. The onerous task of resolving political, economic, and social issues in the court cannot be decided solely on what the crafters of the U.S. Constitution meant. The flexibility of government to operate is provided in the Constitution by its crafters and is likewise sewn in the fabric of society with the same consistency.

A final reflection of the amendment itself may provide insight into the perceived or actual intent and strength of the 14th Amendment. The crafters of the U.S. Constitution did so by creating the document with foresight of flexibility sufficient to deal with an ever-changing society. During the near 80 years from of the inception of the U.S. Constitution until ratification of the 14th Amendment, life as known during that period was altered several times. Undoubtedly the federal government acted appropriately in its attempt to provide security, protection, and equality through an amendment considering the known prior treatment of an entire Negro population. Although the Negro population was freed, it would appear it was not the intent to permit the Negro to live among a more powerful white population.

Constitutional experts will substantively agree to the correctness and need of the 14th Amendment to at least on its face ensure equality for all. However, they are equally resonant to point out the strong-arming tactics required to gain state ratification of the Amendment. The intimidation for approval came on the heels of the deadliest conflict on America soil (Possible exception is the treatment of the Native American Indian.) that surrounded states’ rights (continuation of slavery). The proposal and eventual ratifying of the 14th Amendment signaled that “No State Shall ….” abridge the civil rights of another through creation of laws. Conspicuously absent from this obligation toward human rights was any restriction placed upon the courts to act. This point as previously provided herein did not prevent the court from protecting one class over another class interest as observed in Dred Scott or Plessey v. Ferguson. The separate but equal doctrine remained intact for approximately 100 years following these decisions. Thereby raising a pertinent question in this discussion; Has this amendment crafted social policy, negatively or positively?