1 / 8

14 th Amendment – Ratified in 1868

In Brown v. Board of Ed. , the Supreme Court had to interpret the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, they attempted to figure out the original intent of the 14th Amendment and, specifically, its intended effect on education.

woodj
Télécharger la présentation

14 th Amendment – Ratified in 1868

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In Brown v. Board of Ed., the Supreme Court had to interpret the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. In doing so, they attempted to figure out the original intent of the 14th Amendment and, specifically, its intended effect on education. • What did the Supreme Court take into consideration when attempting to determine the original intent of the 14th Amendment? • What did they ultimately conclude about the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment?

  2. 14th Amendment – Ratified in 1868

  3. Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation Essential Questions: How do judges differ in their approach to interpreting the Constitution?

  4. How should judges interpret the Constitution? Original Intention Interpretivism Non-Interpretivism

  5. How should judges interpret the Constitution? Original Intention Interpretivism Non-Interpretivism Sometimes Called “Strict Constructionists” (Conservative Judges) Sometimes Called “Loose Constructionists” (Liberal Judges)

  6. In this debate between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Steven Breyer, make note of two good arguments/reasons why their philosophy (Originalism vs. Evolutionary) of constitutional interpretation is best. Video Clip

  7. What is the appropriate role of the Supreme Court? Judicial Restraint The philosophy that the Supreme Court should avoid taking the initiative on social and political questions. On these issues they defer to elected officials. Judicial Activism The philosophy that the Supreme Court should play an active role in shaping national policies by addressing social and political issues.

  8. Approaches to Constitutional InterpretationSummarizer: Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Until 2015, in many states it was illegal for a person to marry someone of the same sex. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined, by a 5 to 4 vote, in Obergefell v. Hodges that these statutes deny the “equal protection of the law” that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. • Judge A is guided by a philosophy of “Original Intent”. He would, likely, feel that statutes that ban same sex marriage do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Explain why the philosophy of original intent would lead him to that conclusion. • Judge B is guided by a philosophy of “Noninterpretivism”. He would, likely, feel that statutes that ban same sex marriage do violate the Equal Protection Clause. Explain why the philosophy of noninterpretivism would lead him to that conclusion.

More Related