Pros And Cons Of The Fourteenth Amendment

The authority of the Constitution, its ability to control our lives and enforce our laws, loses its legitimacy if we do not have principles that anchor it securely to reality. The Constitution was seen as a document that strikes a delicate balance between government power to accomplish the great ends of civil society and individual liberty. James Madison created the Federalist Papers, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. This was the beginning of the first amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. Madison opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson became convinced that judges enforced rights are among the necessary against tyranny.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment,” but gives no example of permissible or impermissible punishment. The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republic Form of Government. The Fourteenth Amendment proscribes states abridgments of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, but no privileges or immunities. The court doesn’t subscribe to the simplistic view that
If a rule could be imposed to refer to the preamble, and not part of the Constitution. Even if the rule was imposed it has no apparent grounding in the Constitution itself. The remainder of the document is filled with lively languages about “liberty due to process of law. It’s not surprising that readers on both sides of the American political center have invoked the Constitution as authority for strikingly different conclusions about the legitimacy of existing institution and practices, and that neither wing has found it difficult to cite chapter and verse in support of its “reading” of our fundamental law. The materials tempt the reader to stick his or her vision of the just society into the meaning of the material being