Tag Archives: Fourteenth Amendment

Federal Court Strikes Down Mississippi’s ‘Jim Crow’ Felon Disenfranchisement Law

“Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear national trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement.”

By Brett Wilkins. Published 8-4-2023 by Common Dreams

Photo: Common Cause

A U.S. federal appellate court on Friday ruled that a Jim Crow-era Mississippi law permanently disenfranchising people with certain felony convictions is unconstitutional.

In a decision that can be appealed to the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel of the tribunal ruled 2-1 that Section 241 of Mississippi’s 1890 Constitution “violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.”

Continue reading
Share Button

Privacy isn’t in the Constitution – but it’s everywhere in constitutional law

Who’s allowed to watch what you do and say?
Shannon Fagan/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Scott Skinner-Thompson, University of Colorado Boulder

Almost all American adults – including parents, medical patients and people who are sexually active – regularly exercise their right to privacy, even if they don’t know it.

Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But for half a century, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an outgrowth of protections for individual liberty. As I have studied in my research on constitutional privacy rights, this implied right to privacy is the source of many of the nation’s most cherished, contentious and commonly used rights – including the right to have an abortion – until the court’s June 24, 2022, ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. Continue reading

Share Button

Legacy of Jim Crow still affects funding for public schools

School funding inequities persist along racial and economic lines.
David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Derek W. Black, University of South Carolina and Axton Crolley, University of South Carolina

Nearly 70 years ago – in its 1954 Brown v. Board decision – the Supreme Court framed racial segregation as the cause of educational inequality. It did not, however, challenge the lengths to which states went to ensure the unequal funding of Black schools.

Before Brown, Southern states were using segregation to signify and tangibly reinforce second-class citizenship for Black people in the United States. The court in Brown deemed that segregation was inherently unequal. Even if the schools were “equalized” on all “tangible factors,” segregation remained a problem and physical integration was the cure, the Court concluded. Continue reading

Share Button

‘A Win for Civil Rights’: Federal Judge Blocks Florida GOP’s Anti-Protest Law

The court’s decision, said a coalition of civil rights groups, “serves as a powerful reminder that such unjust and unconstitutional efforts cannot stand.”

By Kenny Stancil, staff writer for Common Dreams.  Puvlished 9-10-2021

George Floyd protests in Miami, Florida on June 6, 2020. Photo: Mike Shaheen/Wikimedia/CC

Civil liberties and racial justice advocates are celebrating after a federal judge ruled Thursday that Florida’s anti-protest law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

In his 90-page decision (pdf) granting civil rights groups’ request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker said the law—passed by Florida’s GOP-controlled House and Senate and signed in April by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in response to demonstrations against police violence and racial injustice—violates rights to free speech and peaceful assembly as well as due process protections. Continue reading

Share Button

“In Case There Was Any Doubt Regarding ‘Stand By'”: Four People Stabbed After Pro-Trump DC Rally

“This is all on you, Republicans. You have enabled all of this.”

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 12-13-2020

Proud Boys in Washington DC on December 12, 2020. Photo: Julie Pillay/Twitter

At least four people were stabbed Saturday as supporters of President Donald Trump, including maskless Proud Boys in helmets and bulletproof vests, descended on the nation’s capital and clashed with counterprotesters—violence that some critics tied to the president’s pre-election directive to the self-described “western chauvinists.”

During a debate ahead of his loss in November, Trump had told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” which swiftly elicited criticism that he was inciting violence. Designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Proud Boys are known for their white nationalistanti-Muslim, and misogynistic rhetoric as well as their presence at the infamous 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville. Continue reading

Share Button

‘Chilling’: Mississippi City Claims Undocumented Man Killed by Police Had No Constitutional Rights

“We’re stunned that someone put this in writing,” a lawyer for Ismael Lopez’s family said.

By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 9-30-2019

A city in Mississippi is arguing that 41-year-old Ismael Lopez, who was killed by police who apparently mistook him for a domestic violence suspect, had no constitutional rights because he was an undocumented immigrant. (Photo: Kurman Communications/Flickr/cc)

A court filing publicized late last week drew outrage on Monday over the case of Ismael Lopez, a 41-year-old man who was killed by police two years ago in Southaven, Mississippi.

To avoid responsibility for the man’s death, attorneys for the city are arguing that Lopez had no constitutional rights due to his status as an undocumented immigrant—blatantly contradicting U.S. law and numerous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Kristen Clarke, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, was among the immigrant rights defenders who drew attention to the case on social media. Continue reading

Share Button

US Government’s Refusal to Confirm or Deny It Put American Journalist on Drone Kill List Called ‘Chilling’

“The government seeks to shield itself from all inquiry into the process by which it acts as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.”

By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 4-2-2019

A man walks past a graffiti, denouncing strikes by U.S. drones in Yemen, painted on a wall in Sanaa. Photo: DJANDYW.COM/flickr

Lawyers for an American journalist who believes he was placed on the government’s infamous “kill list” warned Tuesday that the rights of all U.S. citizens are at stake if the country’s drone assassination program is allowed to continue.

The organization’s comments came as part of a response to the U.S. government’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit regarding its use of the list. Reprieve is representing Bilal Abdul Kareem, a journalist and U.S. citizen who claims he was repeatedly targeted —and nearly killed on five separate occasions—by drone and missile attacks in 2016 when he was reporting on the ongoing conflict in Syria. Continue reading

Share Button

Citing ‘Conscience Shocking’ Conduct, Federal Judge Reinstates Former Gov. Snyder in Flint Water Lawsuit

City residents, said the judge, “could have taken protective measures, if only they had known what the Governor knew. Instead, the Governor misled them into assuming that nothing was wrong.”

By Jon Queally, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 4-1-2019

Screenshot: Fox 17

A federal judge on Monday—who agreed that allegations of “conscience shocking” conduct claimed by plaintiffs were “plausible”—reinstated Michigan’s former Governor Rick Snyder as a defendant in a class action lawsuit by the victims of the water crisis in the city of Flint that first captured national headlines in 2014.

After earlier removing Snyder from the suit, brought by city residents harmed by the poisoning of the municipal water supply, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy reversed that decision as she noted the plaintiffs had shown the allegations against Snyder and his fellow co-defendants “plausibly describe ‘conscience shocking’ conduct” as the people of Flint were stripped of 14th Amendment protections from bodily harm or injury. Continue reading

Share Button

Just Who Is ICE Targeting? Journalist Claims His Arrest Retaliation for Critical Reporting

At the time of his arrest while covering a protest, “I was doing my work and nothing more, like any other journalist does,” says Manuel Duran.

By Andrea Germanos, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 7-9-2018

Manual Duran, seen on the left, is arrested by police on April 3, 2018. (Photo: screengrab/YouTube)

Amid new revelations showing that Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appears to be increasing its indiscriminate arrests of undocumented immigrants—not prioritizing those with serious criminal records—one journalist in custody and facing possible deportation says in a new interview that he believes his arrest was absolutely the result of his reporting critical of the Memphis Police Department and Department of Homeland Security.

At the time of his arrest in April, “I was doing my work and nothing more, like any other journalist does,” 42-year-old Manuel Duran told The Daily Beast in Spanish. He said he believes he was apprehended “without a doubt” as a result of his reporting. Continue reading

Share Button

The Constitution vs Donald Trump

Every four years, we vote for who we feel would be the best person to lead our country. Two months after the election, the new (or returning, if re-elected) president takes the oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Photo: Facebook

Photo: Facebook

Donald Trump is the leading candidate for one of the two major parties, so we wondered how Donald would “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. We didn’t have to look to far to find troubling inconsistencies.

Trump started his campaign off with a bang, calling Mexicans “thugs” and “rapists,” and said he was going to end birthright citizenship. When Bill O’Reilly pointed out to him that such a move violated the 14th Amendment, which states ” 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…”, Trump’s response was that the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional.  He also says he wants to deport all the eleven million undocumented people in the US. How he plans on possibly doing this without violating the 4th Amendment is confusing to us. But, we digress…

Then, we have his statements about Muslims. He wants to ban all Muslims entering the United States. While this is on shaky legal ground, it could be legal, provided he doesn’t include Muslims who live in the US re-entering the country. However, his other proposals definitely aren’t. He proposed requiring all Muslims in the country to register with the government, and creating a database from that information. By singling out a specific religion being required to register, this is definitely against the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. He also proposes putting mosques under surveillance; a violation of both the 1st and 4th Amendments.

Last week, he said that if he was elected president, he’d toughen the libel laws. This would be another direct assault on the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press, as the way the law sits now, public figures must prove that any defamatory statements were made with “actual malice,” Under Trump’s proposal, basically any negative statement about him could be challenged in the courts by his administration.

There’s also pesky details that he overlooks. When he says that he’s unilaterally going to renegotiate the Iran deal or NAFTA, he overlooks the fact that while he can renegotiate or threaten to break agreements all he wants, he’ll still need congressional approval to do so. In fact, with most of Trump’s proposals, he fails to recognize that he’s only one of the three branches of government, and that what he says he’s going to do can’t be done without at least one of the other branches’ approval. And, make no mistake about it, a President Trump would face stiff opposition in both Congress and the Supreme Court.

So, would a President Trump remain true to his oath of office? From what we’ve seen so far, we’d have to say no; he’d break his oath numerous times within his first month.

Hopefully, we’ll never have to find out…

Share Button