fourteenth amendment

If America does have a consensus that we're all basically OK with the concept of governmental blacklists, and that we further approve of curtailing constitutional rights for people on such lists, then it should be relatively easy to get the necessary votes in Congress and the statehouses.
Scalia promoted anything but justice in his opposition to the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action, women's reproductive freedoms, and in particular, the rights and freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* people.
For Donald Trump or anyone else to single out the negative, destructive, and, yes, evil passages of the Quran (or how some sects or cults within Islam co-opt, distort, and attempt to hijack the overall messages) without doing so as well with the holy books of Judaism and Christianity demonstrates a hierarchical double standard.
In a contentious hearing, the Supreme Court shows deep divisions on whether race can remain a factor in college admissions.
Whatever the nation decides to do about immigration, it cannot take away American citizenship from those people who were born here, even if their parents are undocumented. Such children are natural born citizens, or birthright citizens.
Mr. Trump's suggestion about repealing the Fourteenth Amendment gives us the opportunity to not only examine the case that gave rise to the Fourteenth Amendment but to compare that case with a more recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Whether we are descended from majority who came here willfully and found a better life, or from the many who came here unwillingly and lived lives of destitution and terror, the fact remains: We are all transplants, all the descendants of immigrants who desired to have a flourishing life.
Refuse to speak the words gun violence. Call it domestic terrorism. That's what it really is. Like my father, we must have the courage to take a stand. Let's refuse to be bullied by the NRA and the gun industry and their wealthy donors and highly-paid lobbyists.
While "liberty" is indeed an abstract concept, the Constitution is full of such concepts, and concerns about abuse do not excuse judges from conscientiously interpreting and applying those concepts.
Lash's Constitution is amoral -- it would allow myriad individual rights that are central to human flourishing to be voted up or down. He is free, of course, to argue for that view -- but it is one that the Founders rejected, the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments rejected.
Chief Justice John Roberts pouted. "Celebrate," he sniffed, sounding as festive as Ebenezer Scrooge. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." Actually, the Constitution had everything to do with it.
It is arguably the most important question concerning judicial review today. Should judges require the government to offer an honest, reasoned explanation every time it restricts individual liberty, or just some of the time?
The marriage victory required decades of work by countless people. More work remains, from transgender and immigrant rights to police reform, employment protections, and rebuffing the false pose of victimhood by religious bullies.
A fabulous sense of joy came out at Pride celebrations across the nation last week, following SCOTUS's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that individual states can't legally deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
The conversation about immigrant families in the U.S. is typically centered around people from Latin America seeking economic
The Mattachine brief, and the archival rescue that went into it, is in partial payment of an historic debt. But victory in the marriage cases will not complete that debt.
The State of Florida wishes to suppress a long-respected voice of dissent and social justice by targeting arguably "dangerous" content in the advertisements. By prohibiting the advertisement of lawful endeavors everyone should take pause and ask: what are they afraid of?
American slavery ended in the awful carnage of the Civil War. But to conclude Abolitionism was a failure that made no contribution to abolition of slavery (or to the cause of civil liberty) would be a grave mistake.
The idea of limiting an American citizen's travel proactively, on the assumption that she or he will end up fighting with ISIS based on documents or web postings, scrapes at liberty, even if the tools are there and it is legal to use them.