7. 第十四修正法案
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, prohibits state governments from denying citizens the “equal protection of the laws.” Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by this equal protection clause remains unclear, all interpreters agree that the framers’ immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration, which was echoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, was designed primarily to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be denied citizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not provide Congress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnson’s veto, supporters of the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that its framers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list of specific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbids organized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for the first eight decades of the amendment’s existence, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, for example, the Court invented the “state action” limitation, which asserts that “private” decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercial businesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
After the Second World War, a judicial climate more hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two doctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended the amendment’s reach. First, the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation that employed a “suspect classification,” meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could be construed as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to other, nonracial forms of discrimination, for while some justices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race to be constitutionally disfavored, most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracial discriminations, sexual discrimination in particular, are “suspect” and deserve this heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second, the Court relaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment, bringing new forms of private conduct within the amendment’s reach.
17. Which of the following best describes the main idea of the passage?
(A) By presenting a list of specific rights, framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were attempting to provide a constitutional basis for broad judicial protection of the principle of equal citizenship.
(B) Only after the Supreme Court adopted the suspect classification approach to reviewing potentially discriminatory legislation was the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to include sexual discrimination.
(C) Not until after the Second World War did the Supreme Court begin to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner consistent with the principle of equal citizenship that it expresses.
(D) Interpreters of the Fourteenth Amendment have yet to reach consensus with regard to what its framers meant by the equal protection clause.
(E) Although the reluctance of judges to extend the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment to nonracial discrimination has betrayed the principle of equal citizenship, the Supreme Court’s use of the state action limitation to insulate private activity from the amendment’s reach has been more harmful.
18. The passage suggests that the principal effect of the state action limitation was to
(A) allow some discriminatory practices to continue unimpeded by the Fourteenth Amendment
(B) influence the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v, Board of Education
(C) provide expanded guidelines describing prohibited actions
(D) prohibit states from enacting laws that violated the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
(E) shift to state governments the responsibility for enforcement of laws prohibiting discriminatory practices
19. The author’s position regarding the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would be most seriously undermined if which of the following were true?
(A) The framers had anticipated state action limitations as they are described in the passage.
(B) The framers had merely sought to prevent discriminatory acts by federal officials.
(C) The framers were concerned that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
(D) The framers were aware that the phrase “equal protection of the laws” had broad implications.
(E) The framers believed that racial as well as non-racial forms of discrimination were unacceptable.
20. According to the passage, the original proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment were primarily concerned with
(A) detailing the rights afforded by the principle of equal citizenship
(B) providing support in the Constitution for equal protection for all citizens of the United States
(C) closing a loophole that could be used to deny individuals the right to sue for enforcement of their civil rights
(D) asserting that the civil rights protected by the Constitution included nonracial discrimination as well as racial discrimination
(E) granting state governments broader discretion in interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1866
21. The author implies that the Fourteenth Amendment might not have been enacted if
(A) Congress’ authority with regard to legislating civil rights had not been challenged
(B) the framers had anticipated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education
(C) the framers had believed that it would be used in deciding cases of discrimination involving non-racial groups
(D) most state governments had been willing to protect citizens’ civil rights
(E) its essential elements had not been implicit in the Thirteenth Amendment
22. According to the passage, which of the following most accurately indicates the sequence of the events listed below?
I. Civil Rights Act of 1866
II. Dred Scott v. Sandford
III. Fourteenth Amendment
IV. Veto by President Johnson
(A) I, II, III, IV
(B) I, IV, II, III
(C) I, IV, III, II
(D) II, I, IV, III
(E) III, II, I, IV
23. Which of the following can be inferred about the second of the two doctrines referred to in lines 39-41 of the passage?
(A) It caused some justices to rule that all types of discrimination are prohibited by the Constitution.
(B) It shifted the focus of the Supreme Court from racial to nonracial discrimination.
(C) It narrowed the concern of the Supreme Court to legislation that employed a suspect classification.
(D) It caused legislators who were writing new legislation to reject language that could be construed as permitting racial discrimination.
(E) It made it more difficult for commercial businesses to practice racial discrimination.
于1868年批準(zhǔn)的美國憲法第十四條修正案禁止州政府剝奪公民享受“平等的
法律保護(hù)。”盡管該修正案的制定者制定這一平等保護(hù)條款的確切意圖是什么現(xiàn)在
仍無人知曉，但所有的解釋者一致認(rèn)為，該修正案制定者的直接目標(biāo)是要為1868
年的《民權(quán)法》提供憲法保障，而1866年的《民權(quán)法》則保證，凡是在美國出生
并接受美國司法管轄的人均享有公民權(quán)。這一在第十四條修正案的文本中被復(fù)述的
宣言，主要是旨在對抗最高法院在“Dred Scott訴Sandford”一案中的判決，此
判決裁定，在美國的黑人可被剝奪公民權(quán)。安德羅·約翰遜總統(tǒng)(President Andrew
Johnson)否決了《民權(quán)法》，他論辯道，將奴隸制度予以廢除的第十三條修正案，
沒有能夠為國會提供權(quán)力，將公民權(quán)和平等保護(hù)擴(kuò)展至已獲得自由的奴隸。盡管國
會迅速****了約翰遜總統(tǒng)的否決，但《民權(quán)法》的支持者則力圖要以第十四條修正
案的通過來確保其憲法基礎(chǔ)。
第十四條修正案的寬泛籠統(tǒng)的語言強(qiáng)烈地暗示，其制定者所意欲載入憲法的不
是一張具體民法的細(xì)目清單，而是一種平等公民權(quán)的原則，這一原則禁止有組織的
社會將任何一個個人作為劣等階層的成員來對待。然而，對于此修正案存在的最初
八十年來說，最高法院對這一修正案的解釋卻背叛了這一平等理想。例如，在1883
年的“民權(quán)訴訟案”中，最高法院發(fā)明了“州政府行動”限制，這一限制聲稱，公
共旅館和其它商業(yè)企業(yè)的所有者所作出的對其設(shè)施實行種族隔離的“私人”決定，
這類“私人”決定不屬第十四條修正案中法律所保證的平等保護(hù)的適用范圍。
在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之后，一種更有利于平等保護(hù)主張的法律氛圍以最高法院在
“布朗訴教育委員會”(Brown V.Board of Education)一案中的裁決而臻頂點，
最高法院在此案中裁定，實施種族隔離的學(xué)校違反了第十四條修正案的適用范圍。
第一，最高法院要求，對采用“懷疑分類”的立法進(jìn)行格外嚴(yán)格的審查。所謂“懷
疑分類”，意指那種在有可能被理解成以種族為基礎(chǔ)，針對某一群體進(jìn)行的歧視這
一信條擴(kuò)展了第十四條修正案的適用范圍，使其同樣也適用于其它的、非種族形式
的歧視。因為雖然某些法官拒不將除種族以外的立法分類裁定為非法的，但絕大多
數(shù)法官已經(jīng)接受了這樣一個論點，即至少某些非種族性質(zhì)的歧視，尤其是性別歧視，
是“值得懷疑的”，并理應(yīng)接受法庭這種更高程度上的審視。第二，最高法院放松
了州政府行動對第十四條修正案的限制，將各種新的形式的個人行為亦納入到第十
條修正案的適用范圍。
推薦訪問：2013GRE真題