美国宪法第十四修正案：修订间差异

'''《美利坚合众国宪法》第十四条修正案'''（{{lang|-en|Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}}）簡稱「'''第十四修正案'''」（{{lang|en|Amendment XIV}}）于1868年7月9日通过，是三条[[重建修正案]]之一。这一修正案涉及[[公民权利]]和平等法律保护，最初提出是为了解决[[南北战争]]后昔日[[奴隶]]的相关问题。修正案备受争议，特别是在[[美國南部|南部各州]]，这些州为了重新加入聯邦而被迫通过修正案。第十四条修正案对[[美国历史]]产生了深远的影响，有“第二次制宪”之说<ref name="USC25" />{{rp|207}}，之后的大量司法案件均是以其为基础。特别是其第一款中「不得拒絕給予任何人以平等法律保護」的一項，是[[美国宪法]]涉及官司最多的部分之一，它对美国国内的任何[[国家行为|聯邦和地方政府官员行为]]都有法律效力，但对私人行为无效。有關此修正案的法律解釋和應用在美國國內一直受到爭議，自由派通常會接受法院的裁決，並支持通過法院來推翻被指違反民權法律等行為。

* '''第一款'''　所有在於合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人者，都是皆為合众国的和他们及其居住州的之公民。任何一所有州，都皆不得制定或实施限制合众国公民的之特权或豁免权的之法律；不经正当法律程序，任何州皆不得剥夺任何人的之生命、自由或财产；在於州管辖范围内，也不得拒绝给予任何人以平等之法律保护。

* '''第五款'''　国会有权以适当立法实施本条规定。<ref name="USC25">{{citeCite book |url=https://archive.org/details/meiguoxianzhengl0000unse |title=美国宪政历程：影响美国的25个司法大案 |url=https://archive.org/details/meiguoxianzhengl0000unse |author1=任东来 |author2last2=陈伟 |author3last3=白雪峰 |author4last4=Charles J. McClain |author5last5=Laurene Wu McClain |date=2004-01 |publisher=中国法制出版社 |date=2004-01 |isbn=7-80182-138-6 |author1=任东来}}</ref>{{rp|574-575}}<ref name="Li1999">{{citeCite book |author=李道揆|title=美国政府和美国政治（下册） |last=李道揆 |publisher=商务印书馆 |year=1999 |isbn=9787100025294 |location=北京|year=1999 |pages=775-799|isbn=9787100025294}}</ref>

在南北战争的最后几年，以及随之而来的重建时期，联邦国会逐渐就数百万通过1863年[[解放奴隸宣言]]和1865年[[美利坚合众国宪法第十三条修正案|第十三条修正案]]获得自由的前黑人奴隶的权利问题进行反复辩论，其中后者正式确立废除了奴隶制。然而随着第十三条修正案在国会通过，[[共和黨 (美國)|共和党]]开始担心国会中被[[民主党 (美国)|民主党]]主控的南方州议员席位将大幅增长，因为这些州原本大都有数量庞大的黑奴。而根据原[[美利坚合众国宪法第一条|宪法第一条]]中的[[五分之三妥协]]，每名黑奴按五分之三个自由人计算，而在第十三条修正案通过后，所有黑奴都成了自由公民，所以无论获得自由的黑人是否会投票，根据各州人口数分配的[[美国众议院|联邦众议院]]议席都将出现戏剧性的增长<ref name="Goldstone">{{citeCite book |url=http://books.google.com/books/about/Inherently_Unequal.html?id=r3CTEefvbQUC |title=Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865–1903 |last=Goldstone |first=Lawrence|year=2011 |publisher=Walker & Company |accessdate=2013-09-02 |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-8027-1792-4|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/Inherently_Unequal.html?id=r3CTEefvbQUC |ref=harv|accessdate=2013-09-02 |archive-date=2013-10-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131009081115/http://books.google.com/books/about/Inherently_Unequal.html?id=r3CTEefvbQUC |dead-url=no}}</ref>{{rp|22}}<ref name="Stromberg">{{citeCite book |last=Stromberg |first=Joseph R. |title=A Plain Folk Perspective on Reconstruction, State-Building, Ideology, and Economic Spoils |last=Stromberg |first=Joseph R. |publisher=Journal of Libertarian Studies | year = 2002 Spring}}</ref>{{rp|111}}。共和党希望通过吸纳和保护新增黑人选民的选票来抵消民主党的增长。<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|22}}<ref>{{citeCite book |title=The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine |last=Nelson |first=William E. |year=1988 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-04142-4 |page=47 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VMCXjRyyKTQC&pg=PA46&dq=thirteenth+amendment+%22three+fifths%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bz-xUemzGMX8rAGamYDgDQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=thirteenth%20amendment%20%22three%20fifths%22&f=false |title=The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine |last=Nelson |first=William E. |publisher=Harvard University Press |accessdate=2013-09-03 |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-674-04142-4 |page=47 |archive-date=2013-10-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131009081108/http://books.google.com/books?id=VMCXjRyyKTQC&pg=PA46&dq=thirteenth+amendment+%22three+fifths%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bz-xUemzGMX8rAGamYDgDQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=thirteenth%20amendment%20%22three%20fifths%22&f=false |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref name="Stromberg" />{{rp|112}}

1865年，国会通过了一项在后来成为《{{link-en|1866年民权法案|Civil Rights Act of 1866}}》的提案，它确保了个人的种族、肤色或之前是否曾作为奴隶及受到强制劳役等因素不会成为其能否获得公民权的先决条件。该法案还保证法律上的利益均等，这直接打击了内战后南方多个州所通过的[[黑人法令]]。黑人法令试图通过其他的一些方式，表面看来并未恢复奴隶制，但实际效果却在许多方面导致黑人回到以前身为奴隶时的处境中。如限制其活动，迫使他们签订整年时长的劳役合同，禁止他们拥有枪支，以及阻止他们到法院起诉或作证等。<ref name="Foner">{{citeCite book |lasturl=Foner|firsthttp://books.google.com/books?id=EriccwVkgrvctCcC |title=Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 |urllast=http://books.google.com/books?id=cwVkgrvctCcCFoner |yearfirst=1988Eric |publisher=HarperCollins |accessdate=2013-09-02 |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-06-203586-8|accessdate=2013-09-02 |archive-date=2021-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505020835/https://books.google.com/books?id=cwVkgrvctCcC |dead-url=no}}</ref>{{rp|199-200}}但是，《1866年民权法案》受到了[[安德鲁·约翰逊]]的否决，他是一位决不妥协的白人至上主义者<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|21-22}}。1866年4月，国会通过投票推翻了总统的否决，法案正式成为法律，而这一推翻也增强了共和党的信心，他们决心给黑人权利增加宪法级别的保障，而不仅依靠难以长久的政治多数优势<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|22-23}}。再者，甚至一些支持民权法案目标的共和党人也怀疑国会是否的确拥有制订这一法案的宪法权利<ref>{{citeCite book |last=Rosen |first=Jeffrey |title=The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America |pagelast=79Rosen |first=Jeffrey |publisher=MacMillan |year=2007 |page=79}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite book |last=Newman |first=Roger |title=The Constitution and its Amendments |volumelast=4Newman |pagefirst=8Roger |publisher=Macmillan |year=1999 |volume=4 |page=8}}</ref>。

修正案前后起草了超过70份草案<ref>{{citeCite journal |last=Soifer |first=Aviam |urldate=http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1607-1640.pdf11 |title=Federal Protection, Paternalism, and the Virtually Forgotten Prohibition of Voluntary Peonage |url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1607-1640.pdf |publisher=Columbia Law Review |issue=7 |volume=112 |dateissue=2012-117 |pagespage=1614 |deadurl=yes |archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316183615/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1607-1640.pdf |archivedatearchive-date=2014-03-16 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>。其中在1865年末由{{link-en|美国国会重建联合委员会|United States Congress Joint Committee on Reconstruction}}提出的一份草案中，表明一州如因种族而禁止公民投票，那么在根据该州人口总数计算国会议席数时，这部分公民的人口数也不会计入<ref name="Foner" />{{rp|252}}。这一草案在联邦众议院获得通过，但在[[美国参议院|联邦参议院]]受阻，以[[马萨诸塞州]]联邦参议员[[查爾斯·索姆奈|查尔斯·萨姆纳]]为代表的联盟认为该提案是个“错误的妥协”，而民主党参议员则反对黑人权利<ref name="Foner" />{{rp|253}}。国会于是转而考虑[[俄亥俄州]]联邦众议员{{link-en|约翰·宾汉姆|John Bingham}}提出的草案，其内容允许国会对“所有公民的生命、自由和财产”提供“平等保护”，但这份草案没得获得众议院批准<ref name="Foner" />{{rp|253}}。1866年4月，联合委员会向国会提交了第三份提案，其内容经仔细协商，纳入了第一和第二份提案的元素，并提出了前[[美利坚联盟国]]债务及其支持者投票权的解决方案<ref name="Foner" />{{rp|253}}，当中的措辞还在众议院和参议院的多次差距很小的投票中作了进一步修改<ref name="Foner" />{{rp|256}}。这个妥协版本最后在参众两院获得了通过，两党态度径渭分明，共和党支持，民主党反对<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|25}}。

{{link-en|激进派共和党人|Radical Republican}}对他们确保了黑人民权感到满意，但对修正案没能确保黑人的政治权利，特别是投票权感到失望<ref name="Carter">{{citeCite book |last=Carter |first=Dan |title=When the War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865-1867 |pageslast=242-243Carter |first=Dan |publisher=LSU Press |year=1985 |pages=242-243}}</ref>。在这些失望的激进派共和党领袖中，来自[[宾夕法尼亚州]]的众议员[[撒迪厄斯·史蒂文斯]]表示：“我觉得我们有义务对这古老建筑最糟糕的一部分加以修补，然而它却饱受专制主义暴风雨、霜冻和风暴的洗礼。”<ref name="Carter" /><ref name="Graber">{{citeCite journal |last=Graber |first=Mark A. |year=2012-11 |title=Subtraction by Addition? The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments |url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf |title=Subtraction by Addition? The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments |publisher=Columbia Law Review |volume=112 |issue=7 |year=2012-11 |pagespage=1501-1549 |deadurl=yes |archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610203113/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf |archivedatearchive-date=2015-06-10 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>{{rp|1501-1502}}[[废奴主义|废奴主义者]]{{link-en|温德尔·菲利普斯|Wendell Phillips}}则称修正案是一个“致命而彻底的投降”<ref name="Graber" />{{rp|1501-1502}}。这个问题之后将在[[美利坚合众国宪法第十五条修正案|第十五条修正案]]得到解决，{{link-en|第39届美国国会|39th United States Congress}}于1866年6月13日提出了第十四条修正案。

第十四条修正案的批准备受争议：除[[田纳西州]]外，其它所有南方州议会均拒绝批准。这导致了国会于1867年通过了{{link-en|重建法案|Reconstruction Acts}}，该法案直接授权军队接管这些州政府的职权，直到新的民选政府建立并且第十四条修正案通过为止<ref name="america.gov">{{citeCite web |title=The Civil War And Reconstruction |url=http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407120920eaifas0.4535639.html |title=The Civil War And Reconstruction |accessdateaccess-date=2012-10-20 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020070127/http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407120920eaifas0.4535639.html |archivedate=2012-10-20 }}</ref>。

1867年3月2日，国会通过立法，规定任何原美利坚联盟国成员州必须先批准第十四条修正案，然后才可以恢复在国会中的议席。<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Library of Congress, Thirty-Ninth Congress Session II |url=http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=459 |title=Library of Congress, Thirty-Ninth Congress Session II |accessdate=2013-09-04 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142640/http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014%2Fllsl014.db&recNum=459 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |dead-url=no }}</ref>

1868年7月9日，南卡罗莱纳和路易斯安那批准了修正案，使批准州的总数达到[[美利坚合众国宪法第五条|宪法第五条]]规定四分之三多数的28个（美国当时有37个州）<ref name="GPO">{{citeCite web |title=Amendment XIV |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/html/HMAN-112-pg99.htm |titleaccess-date=Amendment XIV2013-09-04 |publisher=US Government Printing Office |accessdate=2013-09-04 |archivedate=2013-06-23 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6HabE9Mjd?url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/html/HMAN-112-pg99.htm |deadurl=no }}</ref><ref name="ratification">{{Cite web |last=Mount |first=Steve |year=2007-01 |title=Ratification of Constitutional Amendments |url=http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html |title=Ratification of Constitutional Amendments |last=Mount |first=Steve |year=2007access-01 |accessdatedate=2013-09-04 |deadurl=yes |archivedate=2013-06-02 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602065247/http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html }}</ref>，这28个州如下：

# [[新泽西州]]：1866年9月11日（1866年9月11日，新泽西州议会试图从1868年2月20日起撤消起批准，理由是该修正案在国会通过时存在程序性问题，其中包括某些州当时被非法地剥夺了在众议院和参议院的代表权<ref name="Documentary">{{citeCite book |publisher=Department of State |title=Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 5 |pagespublisher=533-543Department of State |isbn=0-8377-2045-1 |pages=533-543}}</ref>。新泽西州长于3月5日否决了该州的撤消，州议会又于3月24日推翻了州长的否决。）

1868年7月20日，[[美国国务卿]][[威廉·H·苏厄德|-{zh-cn:威廉·H·苏厄德; zh-tw:威廉·亨利·西華德; zh-hk:威廉·亨利·西華德;}-]]证实如果新泽西和俄亥俄两个州的批准并没有撤消而仍然有效的话，修正案将成为宪法的一部分并开始正式生效。并且假定认为以前反对此修正案的州政府均已重新组建并推翻之前的反对意见<ref>{{citeCite book |publisherurl=Library of Congresshttp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=740 |title=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875 |pagespublisher=707Library |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=740of Congress |accessdate=2013-09-04 |pages=707 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142617/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015%2Fllsl015.db&recNum=740 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。国会也在次日发表声明称修正案已经成为宪法的一部分，并要求国务卿正式颁布<ref name="Killian">{{citeCite book|title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002|last=Killian|first=Johnny H. et al.|publisher=Government Printing Office|isbn=9780160723797|page=31|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=bJjxj5gLRaEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=seward+July+28,+1868+promulgate&source=bl&ots=UIfbKPoYbM&sig=wrDGVZojLHm7WECJZD9ym3qXIEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=et3GUZ7WIITc8wTkkoDYDw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=seward%20July%2028%2C%201868%20promulgate&f=false |title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002 |last=Killian |first=Johnny H. |publisher=Government Printing Office |accessdate=2013-09-04 |isbn=9780160723797 |page=31 |display-authors=etal |archive-date=2017-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107190913/https://books.google.com/books?id=bJjxj5gLRaEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=seward+July+28,+1868+promulgate&source=bl&ots=UIfbKPoYbM&sig=wrDGVZojLHm7WECJZD9ym3qXIEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=et3GUZ7WIITc8wTkkoDYDw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=seward%20July%2028%2C%201868%20promulgate&f=false |dead-url=no}}</ref>。

民主党赢得俄勒冈州的立法选举后于1868年10月15日撤消了该州之前对修正案的批准，但由于为时已晚，这一撤消受到了忽略。第十四条修正案之后获得了1868年时美国全部37个州的批准，其中俄亥俄州、新泽西州和俄勒冈州都是在撤消批准后重新批准。<ref>{{citeCite journal|last=Chin |first=Gabriel J. |coauthors=Abraham, Anjali |year=2008 |title=Beyond the Supermajority: Post-Adoption Ratification of the Equality Amendments |journal=Arizona Law Review |volume=50 |page=25 |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805 |accessdatejournal=2013-09-04Arizona Law Review |deadurlvolume=no50 |archiveurlpage=25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016141348/http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805 |archivedatearchive-date=2012-10-16 |access-date=2013-09-04 |authors=Chin, Gabriel; J. Abraham, Anjali |deadurl=no}}</ref>之后批准的各州和批准日期如下：

{{double image|right|14th Amendment Pg1of2 AC.jpg|190|14th Amendment Pg2of2 AC.jpg|190|存放在[[国家档案和记录管理局]]的两页第十四条修正案文本}}

修正案第一款正式对[[美利坚合众国公民]]作出了定义，并保证任何个人的[[基本權 (憲法學)|基本权利]]不会被任何一个州或[[国家行为]]限制和剥夺。但在1883年的一组{{link-en|民权案件|Civil Rights Cases}}中，最高法院判定第十四条修正案对个人行为没有约束力，修正案只限针对政府行为，因此没有授权国会立法禁止私人及私人组织的[[种族主义|种族歧视]]行为。<ref name="CRC">''Civil Rights Cases'', {{ussc|109|3|1883}}</ref>

激进派共和党人希望给因第十三条修正案获得自由的人们保障广泛的公民权和人权，但这些权利的范围在修正案生效前就出现了争议<ref name="Graber" />{{rp|1523}}。之前国会通过的{{link-en|1866年民权法案|Civil Rights Act of 1866}}认定所有在美利坚合众国出生且受其管辖的人就是美国公民，第十四条修正案的制订者希望将这一原则写入宪法，来防止这一法案被联邦最高法院宣布违宪而被取消，或是被将来的国会通过投票改变<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|23-24}}<ref name="Foner1987">{{citeCite book |author=Eric Foner |title=The Second American Revolution |chapterlast=InEric TheseFoner Times|publisher=New York University Press |dateyear=1987-092000 |versionisbn=0814782493 |series=Civil Rights Since 1787 |chapter=In These Times |editor1=Jonathan Birnbaum |editor2=Clarence Taylor |publisher=New York University Press |year=2000 |isbn=0814782493}}</ref>。这一款也是对南方各州以暴力对付黑人行径的回应。国会重建联合委员会认为只有通过一项宪法修正案才能够保护这些州中黑人的权益和福利<ref>{{citeCite journal |ssrndate=11203082009-04-02 |title=Finkelman, Paul, John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment |journal=Akron Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 671, 2003 |publisher=Ssrn.com |datessrn=2009-04-021120308}}</ref>。

修正案的第一款是该修正案被引用次数最多的部分<ref>{{citeCite book |last1=Harrell |first1=David |last2=Gaustad |first2=Edwin |title=Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People |volumefirst=1David |pagelast2=520Gaustad |first2=Edwin |publisher=Eerdmans Publishing |year=2005 |volume=1 |page=520 |quote="The most important, and the one that has occasioned the most litigation over time as to its meaning and application, was Section One." |last1=Harrell}}</ref>，这条修正案也是宪法中被引用最为频繁的一部分<ref>{{citeCite book |lasturl=Stephenson |first=Dhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Waite-Court-Justices-Handbooks/dp/1576078299 |title=The Waite Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy |pagelast=147Stephenson |first=D. |date=2003-11-12 |isbn=978-1576078297 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |url=http://www.amazon.com/The-Waite-Court-Justices-Handbooks/dp/1576078299 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |isbn=978-1576078297 |page=147 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142648/https://www.amazon.com/The-Waite-Court-Justices-Handbooks/dp/1576078299 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

修正案的这一条款推翻了最高法院在斯科特诉桑福德案中裁决[[黑人]]不是也不会成为美国公民并享有各项权利的判决<ref>{{citeCite journal|ssrn=1023809 |title=Tsesis, Alexander, The Inalienable Core of Citizenship: From Dred Scott to the Rehnquist Court |journal=Arizona State Law Journal, Vol. 39, 2008 |publisher=Ssrn.com |ssrn=1023809}}</ref><ref>''McDonald v. Chicago'', 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3060 (2010) ("This [clause] unambiguously overruled this Court's contrary holding in ''Dred Scott''.")</ref>。《1866年民权法案》赋予任何生于美国且非外国势力的人公民身份，而第十四条修正案的这一条款则将该规则宪法化。

根据国会对修正案展开的辩论和当时普遍的习惯和认识，对国会通过和各州批准修正案的意图也有着多种不同的诠释<ref>{{citeCite web |last=Messner |first=Emily |urldate=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/-03/born_in_the_usa.html-30 |title=Born in the U.S.A. (Part I), |chapter=The Debate |publisher=Washington Post |dateurl=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006-/03-30/born_in_the_usa.html |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=Washington Post |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111106032355/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/born_in_the_usa.html |archivedate=2011-11-06 }}</ref><ref name="nyt96">{{citeCite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us/citizenship-proposal-faces-obstacle-in-the-constitution.html |work=The New York Times |title=Citizenship Proposal Faces Obstacle in the Constitution |author=Pear, Robert |work=The New York Times |date=1996-08-07 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-01-20 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130120140816/http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us/citizenship-proposal-faces-obstacle-in-the-constitution.html |archivedate=2013-01-20 |dead-url=no}}</ref>。这一条款已经出现的一些主要问题包括：条款在何种情况下包括[[美洲原住民]]，非美国公民在美国合法居留期间如果产子，孩子是否可以拥有公民身份，公民权是否可以被剥夺，以及条款是否适用于[[非法移民]]。

国会最初对修正案进行辩论时，公民条款的起草者，密歇根州联邦参议员雅各布·M·霍华德<ref name="Salon">{{citeCite web |last=LaFantasie |first=Glenn |date=2011-03-20 |title=The erosion of the Civil War consensus |publisher=Salon |date=2011-03-20 |url=http://www.salon.com/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/ |publisher=Salon |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-01-01 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130101145756/http://www.salon.com/2011/03/20/lafantasie_civil_war_consensus/ }}</ref>形容该条款虽然与《1866年民权法案》在措辞上有些差异，但内容是相同的。亦即其中排除了美洲原住民，因为他们维持着与部落间的关系，就相当于是“外国大使和或公使的家人”一样，出生在美国，但仍然属于外国人<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 |titlearchive-url=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pthttps://web. 4, parchive.org/web/20210412143651/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=11 2893|archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |accessdate=2013-09-04 |quote=Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States...If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States." |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412143651/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=11 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。据[[西肯塔基大学]][[历史学家]]格伦·W·拉凡特西（{{lang|en|Glenn W. LaFantasie}}）所说，“有相当数量的资深参议员同意他对公民条款的观点”<ref name="Salon" />。其他参议员也同意各国大使或公使的孩童应该被排除<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2897 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412143651/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=11 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 572 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=702 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412143745/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070%2Fllcg070.db&recNum=702 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

来自威斯康星州的联邦参议员{{link-en|詹姆斯·鲁德·杜利特尔|James Rood Doolittle}}主张所有美洲原住民都受美国管辖，所以使用“未被课税的印第安人”加以明确更为可取<ref>{{citeCite web |title=11 Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2890,2892-4,2896 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum= |archive-date=2020-03-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200319103516/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum= |archive-date=2020-03-19 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |dead-url=no }}</ref>，但[[美国参议院司法委员会|参议院司法委员会主席]]，伊利诺伊州参议员{{link-en|莱曼·特朗布尔|Lyman Trumbull}}和霍华德对此提出了反驳，他们争辩称联邦政府对美洲原住民部落并没有充分的管辖权，后者属于自我管理，并与合众国签订条约<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 |publisherarchive-url=thehttps://web.archive.org/web/20210418193045/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=14 Library of Congress|archive-date=2021-04-18 |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |quote=Trumbull, during the debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?...We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?.... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens." |archive-date=2021-04-18 |archivedead-url=https:/no}}</ref><ref name="howard2">{{Cite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt.archive 4, p.org/web/20210418193045/https 2895 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073/llcg073.db&recNum=1416 |deadarchive-url=no }}<https://ref><ref name=howard2>{{cite web |url=.archive.org/web/20210412142714/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=16 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895 |accessdate=2013-09-04 |quote=Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" and that the U.S. possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment. |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142714/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073%2Fllcg073.db&recNum=16 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

在1884年的{{link-en|艾尔克诉威尔金斯案|Elk v. Wilkins}}中，联邦最高法院裁决于[[印第安保留地|保留地]]出生的印第安人不属于联邦政府管辖范围，因此不能够获得美国公民身份，亦不可因为之后只是离开保留地并放弃向之前的部落效忠就能成为美国公民<ref>''Elk v. Wilkins'', {{ussc|112|94|1884}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite book |lasturl=Urofsky|first=Melvin Ihttp://books.|coauthorgoogle.com/?id=Finkelman,LQVDZ9jg8m0C Paul|title=A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States|edition=2nd |publisher=Oxford University Press |placeaccessdate=New2013-09-04 York, NY|year=2002|volume=1 |isbn=0-19-512635-1 |urledition=http://books.google.com/?id2nd |volume=LQVDZ9jg8m0C1 |accessdatelocation=2013-09-04New York, NY |authors=Urofsky, Melvin I.;Finkelman, Paul}}</ref>。这个问题一直到《{{link-en|1924年印第安公民法|Indian Citizenship Act of 1924}}》通过后才获得解决，该法赋予美洲原住民美国国籍<ref>{{Cite web |author=Reid, Kay |date=2012-09-22 |title=Multilayered loyalties: Oregon Indian women as citizens of the land, their tribal nations, and the united States |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-335070700.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130904142854/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-335070700.html |archive-date=2013-09-04 |access-date=2013-09-04 |website=Oregon Historical Quarterly |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。

在1898年的[[美合众国诉黄金德案]]中，条款中有关合法移民后代公民权的问题受到了考验。最高法院根据第十四条修正案做出判决，拥有中国籍父母而在美国境内出生且拥有一个固定住所，还在美国经商的人，并且他的父母也不是任何外交官的雇员或外国官员，不属任何外国势力时，他就是美国公民<ref>''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', {{ussc|169|649|1898}}</ref>。之后一些案件的判决则进一步认定非中国血统的其他同类外籍人仕的后代同样适用这一原则<ref name="Rodriguez2009">{{citeCite journal |last=Rodriguez |first=C.M. |year=2009 |title="The Second Founding: The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment" [PDF] |url=http://www.pennjcl.com/issues/11/11.5/11-5%20Rodriguez.pdf |yearformat=2009 |last=Rodriguez |first=C.M.PDF |journal=U. Pa. J. Const. L. |pages=1363–1475 |volume=11 |accessdatepage=2011-07-151363–1475 |deadurl=yes |format=PDF |archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715063130/http://www.pennjcl.com/issues/11/11.5/11-5%20Rodriguez.pdf |archivedatearchive-date=2011-07-15 |access-date=2011-07-15 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>。

* 自愿放弃公民权。美国公民可以通过[[美国国务院|国务院]]或其它途径来宣布放弃其公民权。<ref>{{citeCite web |urllast=http://travelU.stateS.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html Department of State |date=2008-02-01 |title=Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality |lasturl=Uhttp://travel.Sstate. Department of Stategov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html |access-date=2008-02-01 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=yes |archivedate=2013-08-28 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828024706/http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html }}</ref>

在美国历史上相当长的一段时间里，自愿取得他国国籍将被认为主动放弃其美国公民身份<ref>For example, see ''Perez v. Brownell'', {{ussc|356|44|1958}}, overruled by ''Afroyim v. Rusk'', {{ussc|387|253|1967}}</ref>，这一规定被写入了当时美国与其他多个国家之间的一系列条约之中（{{link-en|班克罗夫特条约|Bancroft Treaties}}）<ref>For the text of the first Bancroft treaties see {{Citation |year= 1971 |title= Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans) |publisher= The Department of State, Government Printing Office |place= Washington, DC |volume= VIII (Germany-Iran) |url= http://books.google.bg/books?id=CNIWAAAAYAAJ&hl=bg&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=true |year=1971 |volume=VIII (Germany-Iran) |place=Washington, DC |publisher=The Department of State, Government Printing Office |accessdate= 2013-09-05 |archive-date= 2021-04-12 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142735/https://books.google.bg/books?id=CNIWAAAAYAAJ&hl=bg&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=true |dead-url= no }}</ref><ref>See {{Citation |last=Oppenheim |first=Lassa |year=1905 |title=International Law, A Treatise |publisher=Longmans, Green, Co. |place=London, New York, Bombay |volume= I (Peace) |url= http://archive.org/stream/internationalla00oppegoog#page/n419/mode/2up |year=1905 |volume=I (Peace) |page=368 |place=London, New York, Bombay |publisher=Longmans, Green, Co. |accessdate=2013-09-05}}</ref><ref>See {{Citation |last=Munde |first=Charles |year=1868 |title= The Bancroft Naturalization Treaties with the German States; The United States Constitution and the Rights and Privileges of Citizens of Foreign Birth; Being a Collection of Documents and Opinions Relating to the Subject, to the Encroachment of the North-German Treaty on Our Civil Rights, and the Measures to Rebut it; An Appeal to the German-American Citizens, to the Government, Congress, Court of Claims, and the People of the United States of America |publisher= A. Stuber |place= Würzburg |url= http://archive.org/stream/cu31924005227503#page/n3/mode/2up |year=1868 |place=Würzburg |publisher=A. Stuber |accessdate=2013-09-05}}</ref><ref>There were bilateral treaties with Albania, Austria-Hungary, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Haiti, Hesse, Honduras, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Prussia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Wurttemberg. For the text of the treaty with Great Britain see {{Citation |title=Treaties and Convention between the United States and Other Powers, Since July 4, 1776, Revised Edition |url=http://archive.org/stream/cu31924005227727#page/n411/mode/2up |year=1873 |contributionpages=405 |contribution=Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain, Relative to Naturalization, Concluded May 13, 1870, Ratifications Exchanged August 10, 1870, Proclaimed by the President of the United States, September 16, 1870 |titleplace= Treaties and Convention between the United States and Other PowersWashington, Since July 4, 1776, Revised EditionDC |publisher= Government Printing Office |place= Washington, DC |url= http://archive.org/stream/cu31924005227727#page/n411/mode/2up |pages= 405 |accessdate=2013-09-05}}. Norway and Sweden were included in a single treaty signed in 1869 when the two countries were joined in a personal union under the Swedish monarchy. The Interamerican Convention of 1906 covered Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Panama and Uruguay. For the text of the 1906 Inter-American Convention see {{Citation |year=1968 |contribution= Status of Naturalized Persons who Return to Country Of Origin (Inter-American), Convention signed at Rio de Janeiro, August 13, 1906 |title= Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans) |publisher= The Department of State, Government Printing Office |place= Washington, DC |volume= 1 (Multilateral) 1776-1917 |url= http://books.google.bg/books?id=_80WAAAAYAAJ&dq=editions%3A43y5TqPo_WwC&pg=PA544#v=onepage&q&f=true |pages=544 |accessdate=2013-09-05}}. The treaties with each of the German states except Prussia became obsolete when the German Empire was proclaimed in 1871. The treaties with Prussia and Austria-Hungary lapsed with the American declaration of war in 1917 and were never revived. Brazil, Mexico and the United Kingdom terminated their treaties; and Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay withdrew from the 1906 convention.</ref><ref>For the 1937 Treaty with Lithuania see {{Citation |year=1972 |contribution= Liability for Military Service of Naturalized Persons and Persons born with Double Nationality |title= Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans) |publisher= The Department of State, Government Printing Office |place= Washington, DC |volume= IX (Iraq-Muscat) |url=http://books.google.bg/books?id=U84WAAAAYAAJ&dq=lithuania%20treaty%20unites%20states&hl=bg&pg=PA690#v=onepage&q=lithuania%20treaty%20unites%20states&f=true |year=1972 |volume=IX (Iraq-Muscat) |pages=690 |contribution=Liability for Military Service of Naturalized Persons and Persons born with Double Nationality |place=Washington, DC |publisher=The Department of State, Government Printing Office |accessdate=2013-09-05}}</ref>。不过，联邦最高法院在1967年的{{link-en|阿弗罗依姆诉鲁斯克案|Afroyim v. Rusk}}<ref>Afroyim v. Rusk, {{ussc|387|253|1967}}</ref>、1980年的{{link-en|万斯诉特拉查斯案|Vance v. Terrazas}}<ref>{{ussc|444|252|1980}}</ref>中都否定了这一条款，并认定第十四条修正案的公民条款禁止国会撤消任何美国公民的公民权。但是一个人可以根据他自己的意志来从宪法上放弃自己的公民权，而且国会也可以在赋予一个并非在美国出生的人公民权后，再予以撤消<ref>{{citeCite web |last=Yoo |first=John |urldate=http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm2002-06-12 |title=Survey of the Law of Expatriation: Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor General |date=2002-06-12 |workurl=http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-05 |website=justice.gov |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120926081209/http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm |deadurl=yes |archivedate=2012-09-26 }}</ref>。

修正案中的特权或豁免权条款规定，“任何一州，都不得制定或实施限制合众国公民的特权或豁免权的法律”，这一条款与[[美利坚合众国宪法第四条|宪法第四条]]的{{link-en|特权和豁免权条款|Privileges and Immunities Clause}}一脉相承<ref>{{citeCite book|last=Berger |firsturl=Raoulhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675 |title=Government by Judiciary : The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment |yearlast=1997Berger |first=Raoul |publisher=Liberty Fund |locationaccessdate=Indianapolis2013-09-05 |isbnyear=08659714471997 |pageisbn=58 |url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=6750865971447 |edition=2nd ed. |accessdatelocation=2013-09-05Indianapolis |deadurlpage=no |archivedate=2012-10-2258 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121022182228/http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle%3D675 |archivedate=2012-10-22 |deadurl=no}}</ref>，后者保护各州公民特权和豁免权不免他州干预<ref name="Slaughter">''Slaughter-House Cases'', {{ussc|83|36|1873}}</ref>。在1873年的{{link-en|屠宰场案|Slaughter-House Cases}}中最高法院总结指出宪法承认两种形式的公民，一种是“国家公民”，另一种是“州公民”。法院判决特权或豁免权条款只是禁止各州对国家公民所拥有的特权和豁免权加以干涉<ref name="Slaughter" /><ref name="Beatty">{{citeCite book |last=Beatty |first=Jack |title=Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |date=2008-04-08 |publisher=Vintage Books |location=New York |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3eG_QoBRzsC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22To+Miller+the+first+sentence+of+the+Fourteenth%22#v=onepage&q=%22To%20Miller%20the%20first%20sentence%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%22 |title=Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900 |last=Beatty |first=Jack |date=2008-04-08 |publisher=Vintage Books |accessdate=2013-09-05 |isbn=1400032423 |location=New York |page=135 |archive-date=2017-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107124830/https://books.google.com/books?id=U3eG_QoBRzsC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22To+Miller+the+first+sentence+of+the+Fourteenth%22#v=onepage&q=%22To%20Miller%20the%20first%20sentence%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%22 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。法院还认为国家公民的特权和豁免权仅包括那些来自“联邦政府、国民身份、宪法或法律”所赋予的权利<ref name="Slaughter" />。法院确认了为数不多的几项权利，包括使用港口和航道，竞选联邦公职，在[[公海]]或外国管辖范围时受联邦政府保护，前往政府所在地，和平集会和向政府请愿，[[人身保护令]]特权以及参与政府行政管理的权利<ref name="Slaughter" /><ref name="Beatty" />。这一判决尚未被推翻，而且已经特别受到了几次重申<ref>e.g., ''United States v. Morrison'', {{ussc|529|598|2000}}</ref>。很大程度上是因为屠宰场案的狭隘判定，这一条款随后已沉寂了一个多世纪<ref>{{citeCite book |last=Shaman |first=Jeffrey M. |title=Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality |pagelast=248Shaman |publisherfirst=PraegerJeffrey M. |date=2000-11-30 |publisher=Praeger |isbn=978-0313314735 |page=248}}</ref>。

在1999年的{{link-en|萨恩斯诉罗伊案|Saenz v. Roe}}中，法院判决[[出入境自由|旅行的权利]]受到第十四条修正案特权或豁免权的保护<ref>''Saenz v. Roe'', {{ussc|526|489|1999}}, quote:Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the ''Slaughter-House Cases'' (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the ''Slaughter-House Cases'', Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges ''conferred by this Clause'' "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." (emphasis added)</ref>。大法官{{link-en|塞缪尔·弗里曼·米勒|Samuel Freeman Miller}}曾在屠宰场案判决中写道，（通过居住在该州而）成为一个州公民的权利是由宪法中的“那一条”，而不是由正在审议的这个“条款”赋予的<ref name="Slaughter" /><ref>{{citeCite book |lasturl=Bogen |first=Davidhttp://www.amazon.com/Privileges-Immunities-Reference-Constitution-ebook/dp/B001ECQKR0 |title=Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution |pagelast=104Bogen |publisherfirst=PraegerDavid |date=2003-04-30 |urlpublisher=http://www.amazon.com/Privileges-Immunities-Reference-Constitution-ebook/dp/B001ECQKR0Praeger |accessdate=2013-09-05 |page=104 |asin=B001ECQKR0 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412150236/https://www.amazon.com/Privileges-Immunities-Reference-Constitution-ebook/dp/B001ECQKR0 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

在2010年的[[麦克唐纳诉芝加哥案]]中，大法官[[克拉倫斯·托馬斯]]代表多数意见认为[[美國憲法第二修正案|第二修正案]]保护的个人拥有武器权利同样适用于各州。他宣布自己是根据特权或豁免权条款而非正当程序条款得出了这一结论。[[蘭迪·巴內特]]曾指出，大法官托马斯的意见是对特权或豁免权条款的“全面恢复”。<ref>McDonald v. Chicago, {{ussc|561|3025|2010}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |last=Barnett |first=Randy |date=2010-06-28 |title=Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-or-immunities-clause-alive-again/ |title=Privileges or Immunities Clause alive again |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-05 |datepublisher=2010-06-28SCOTUSblog |deadurl=no |publisher=SCOTUSblog |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513160954/http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-or-immunities-clause-alive-again/ |archivedate=2013-05-13 }}</ref>

第十四条修正案的正当程序条款在文本表述上与[[美國憲法第五修正案|第五修正案]]的同名条款相同，但后者针对的是联邦政府，前者针对的是各州，两个条款都被解读为拥有相同的[[程序性正当程序]]和[[实质性正当程序]]思想<ref name="constitutional-gov">{{citeCite book|last=Curry|first=James A.|title=Constitutional Government: The American Experience|year=2003|publisher=Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company|isbn=0-7872-9870-0|page=210|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=qWR3pvfyI1sC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=two+Due+Process+Clauses+fifth+fourteenth+interpreted+identically&source=bl&ots=uzaCRH2D0N&sig=8QL3_GLOgj9fEVJsj86n66GxZx4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AOHiUfqxAZX54AOmr4CAAQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=two%20Due%20Process%20Clauses%20fifth%20fourteenth%20interpreted%20identically&f=false |coauthorstitle=Riley,Constitutional RichardGovernment: B.;The Battiston,American RichardExperience |publisher=Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company M.|accessdate=2013-09-05 |year=2003 |isbn=0-7872-9870-0 |page=210 |chapter=6 |authors=Curry, James A.; Riley, Richard B.; Battiston, Richard M. |archive-date=2017-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107125023/https://books.google.com/books?id=qWR3pvfyI1sC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=two+Due+Process+Clauses+fifth+fourteenth+interpreted+identically&source=bl&ots=uzaCRH2D0N&sig=8QL3_GLOgj9fEVJsj86n66GxZx4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AOHiUfqxAZX54AOmr4CAAQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=two%20Due%20Process%20Clauses%20fifth%20fourteenth%20interpreted%20identically&f=false |dead-url=no}}</ref>。

程序性正当程序指的是政府应该确保以公正的法律程度来保护公民的生命、自由或财产；实质性正当程序则是指保障公民的基本权利不受政府侵害<ref>{{citeCite encyclopedia |year=2009 |title=Due process |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of American Business |publisher=Infobase |last=Gupta |first=Gayatri |editor-last=Folsom |editor-first=W. Davis |pages=134 |editor-first2=Rick |editor-last2=Boulware |pages=134}}</ref>。第十四条修正案的正当程序条款还融合了权利法案的大部分条文，将这些原本只针对联邦政府的规定通过[[合并原则]]应用到各州<ref name="incorp">{{citeCite journal |last=Cord |first=Robert L. |year=1987 |title=The Incorporation Doctrine and Procedural Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment: An Overview |journal=Brigham Young University Law Review |year=1987 |issue=3 |page=868 |url=http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1987/3/cor.pdf |accessdateformat=2013-09-05PDF |deadurljournal=noBrigham Young University Law Review |archivedateissue=2010-06-223 |archiveurlpage=868 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100622000919/http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1987/3/cor.pdf |formatarchive-date=PDF2010-06-22 |access-date=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no}}</ref>。

从1897年的{{link-en|奥尔盖耶诉路易斯安那州案|Allgeyer v. Louisiana}}开始，法院就认为正当程序条款需要向私人契约提供实质性保护，从而禁止政府的各类社会和经济调节、管控，这一原则被称为[[契约自由原则]]<ref>''Allgeyer v. Louisiana'', {{ussc|165|578|1897}}</ref><ref name="Wests">{{Cite book |url=http://law.jrank.org/pages/6312/Due-Process-Law-Substantive-Due-Process.html |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law |publisher=Thomson Gale |accessdate=2013-09-05 |year=1998 |chapter=Due Process of Law – Substantive Due Process |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-06 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606021952/http://law.jrank.org/pages/6312/Due-Process-Law-Substantive-Due-Process.html |urlarchivedate=http://law.jrank.org/pages/6312/Due2013-Process06-Law-Substantive-Due-Process.html06 |deadurl=no}}</ref>。根据这一原则，法院在1905年的{{link-en|[[洛克纳诉纽约州案|Lochner v. New York}}]]中宣布一项规定面包工人最高工时的法律违宪<ref>''Lochner v. New York'', {{ussc|198|45|1905}}</ref>，又于1923年的{{link-en|阿德金斯诉儿童医院案|Adkins v. Children's Hospital}}中判决一项规定最低工资标准的法律无效<ref>''Adkins v. Children's Hospital'', {{ussc|261|525|1923}}</ref>，同年的{{link-en|迈耶诉内布拉斯加案|Meyer v. Nebraska}}中，法院指出“自由”受正当程序条款保护<ref>''Meyer v. Nebraska'', {{ussc|262|390|1923}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |title=CRS Annotated Constitution |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag8_user.html |titleaccess-date=CRS Annotated Constitution2013-06-12 |publisher=Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute |accessdate=2013-06-12 |archivedate=2013-06-12 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6HKNGO94g?url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag8_user.html |deadurl=no |quote=[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. |archivedate=2013-06-12 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6HKNGO94g?url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag8_user.html |deadurl=no}}</ref>。

虽然“契约自由”已经失宠，但到了1960年代，法院已经扩展了实质性正当程序的解释，在其中包括了其它未于宪法中列举，但可由现有权利推导出的权利和自由<ref name="Wests" />。例如，公正程序条款也是[[隐私权 (美国)|隐私权]]的宪法基础。最高法院在1965年的[[格里斯沃尔德诉康涅狄格州案]]里首次裁决隐私权受宪法保护，由此推翻了康涅狄格州禁止[[生育控制]]的法律<ref>''Griswold v. Connecticut'', {{ussc|381|479|1965}}</ref>。由大法官[[威廉·道格拉斯]]起草的多数意见认为隐私权可以在权利法案的各项规定中获得支持，大法官{{link-en|阿瑟·戈德堡|Arthur Goldberg}}和[[約翰·馬歇爾·哈倫二世]]在赞同意见中认为正当程序条款所包括的“自由”包括个人隐私<ref>{{Cite web |date=2000-01-01 |title=Griswold v. Connecticut |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001141.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130905041203/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001141.html |archive-date=2013-09-05 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。

隐私权是1973年[[羅訴韋德案]]判决的基础，在该案中，最高法院判定德克萨斯州除非是为挽救[[母亲]]生命，否则禁止堕胎的法律无效<ref>''Roe v. Wade'', {{ussc|410|113|1973}}</ref>。由大法官[[哈利·布萊克蒙]]执笔的多数意见和之前戈德堡与哈伦二世两位大法官在格里斯沃尔德案中的赞同意见一样，认为正当程序条款包括的自由也包括隐私权。这一裁决废止了多个州和联邦对堕胎的限制，成为最高法院历史上最具争议性的判决之一<ref>{{Cite web |date=2000-01-01 |title=Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002190.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610054110/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425002190.html |archive-date=2014-06-10 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。在1992年的{{link-en|计划生育联盟诉凯西案|Planned Parenthood v. Casey}}中，最高法院重申了罗诉韦德案的判决，称“罗诉韦德案判决的核心内容应该予以保留并再次重审”<ref>''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'', {{ussc|505|833|1992}}</ref><ref>{{ussc|505|845|1992}}, {{ussc|505|846|1992}}</ref>。在2003年的[[劳伦斯诉德克萨斯州案]]中<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', {{ussc|539|558|2003}}</ref>，法院判决德克萨斯州禁止[[同性性行为]]的法律违反隐私权<ref>{{Cite web |author=Spindelman, Marc |date=2004-06-01 |title=Surviving Lawrence v. Texas |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-127277818.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610055840/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-127277818.html |archive-date=2014-06-10 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Michigan Law Review |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。2022年6月26日，[[美国最高法院]]在[[多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案]]判决中裁定妇女堕胎权不属于隐私权，不受此修正案保护，应交由各州自行决定<ref>{{Cite web |title=19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (06/24/2022) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624141102/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf |archive-date=2022-06-24 |access-date=2022-06-26 |publisher=[[美国最高法院]]}}</ref>。

程序性正当程序指的是政府应该确保以公正的法律程序来保护公民的生命、自由或财产，最高法院认为，政府至少应该给予个人知情权，令其可以在听证中给自己辩护，并由一个中立的第三方来进行裁决。例如当政府部门旨在解雇一名雇员，或是从公立学校开除学生，或是停止对某人进行福利救助时，都需要通过以上的程序来进行。<ref>{{citeCite book |last=White |first=Bradford |title=Procedural Due Process in Plain English |last=White |first=Bradford |publisher=National Trust for Historic Preservation |year=2008 |isbn=0-89133-573-0}}</ref><ref>See also ''Mathews v. Eldridge'' (1976), {{ussc|424|319|1976}}</ref>

法院还根据正当程序原则裁定法官在存在[[利益衝突]]时应当予以回避。例如在2009年的{{link-en|卡珀顿诉马西煤炭公司案|Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.}}中，最高法院判定{{link-en|西弗吉尼亚州最高上诉法院|Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia}}的一位大法官应当在一个案件中自行回避，因为案件涉及到他当选该法院法官选举时的一位主要支持者。<ref>''Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.'', {{ussc|556|___|2009}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite news |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124447000965394255.html |title=Justices Set New Standard for Recusals |last=Jess Bravin and Kris Maher |date=2009-06-08 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=2009-06-08 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111024030/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124447000965394255.html |archivedate=2012-11-11 |dead-url=no}}</ref>

虽然许多[[美国州宪法|州宪法]]都是依照联邦宪法和联邦法律制订的，但这些州宪法并不一定包括媲美权利法案的同类规定。在1833年的{{link-en|巴伦诉巴尔的摩案|Barron v. Baltimore}}中，最高法院以全体一致通过裁决权利法案只是用来限制联邦政府，对各州无效<ref>''Barron v. Baltimore'', {{ussc|32|243|1833}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Levy, Leonard W. |title=Barron v. City of Baltimore 7 Peters 243 (1833) |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000188.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150329133228/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000188.html |archive-date=2015-03-29 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。不过，最高法院之后通过第十四修正案的正当程序条款将大部分权利法案中的规定应用到各州，这一做法被称为“合并原则”<ref name="incorp" />。

对于包括约翰·宾汉姆在内的修正案制定者是否有意建立合并原则的问题，法律史学家一直争论不休<ref>{{citeCite encyclopedia |year=2006 |title=Bingham, John Armor |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties |publisher=CRC Press |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA145&dq=%22fourteenth+amendment%22+John+Bingham&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oUe6Uei9Cons8wTpq4HoBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20John%20Bingham&f=false |year=2006 |title=Bingham, John Armor |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties |publisher=CRC Press |last=Foster |first=James C. |editor-firstlast=PaulFinkleman |editor-lastfirst=FinklemanPaul |pages=145 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |archive-date=2017-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107124652/https://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA145&dq=%22fourteenth+amendment%22+John+Bingham&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oUe6Uei9Cons8wTpq4HoBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20John%20Bingham&f=false |archive-date=2017-01-07 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。据法律学者[[阿希尔·里德·阿马]]所说，第十四条修正案的制定者和早期支持者们相信，在第十四条修正案通过后，各州都将不得不承认与联邦政府相同的个人权利，所有这些权利都很可能被理解成属于修正案中“特权或豁免权”的保障范围<ref>{{citeCite journal |last=Amar |first=Akhil Reed |year=1992 |title=The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment |journal=Yale Law Journal |volume=101 |issue=6 |pages=1193–1284 |doi=10.2307/796923 |url=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html |jstorjournal=796923Yale Law Journal |publisher=The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 101, No. 6 |accessdatevolume=2013-09-05101 |deadurlissue=yes6 |archivedatepage=2013-09-031193–1284 |archiveurldoi=10.2307/796923 |jstor=796923 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130903205310/http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html |archive-date=2013-09-03 |access-date=2013-09-05 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>。

时间进入20世纪下半叶后，几乎所有权利法案中保障的权利都已经应用到各州<ref>{{Cite web |urldate=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0391_0145_ZC.html1968-05-20 |title=''Duncan v. Louisiana'' (Mr. Justice Black, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring) |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0391_0145_ZC.html |access-date=19682013-0509-2005 |publisher=Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-03-23 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130323010001/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0391_0145_ZC.html }}</ref>。最高法院已经判定第十四条修正案的正当程序条款包含了[[美国宪法第一修正案|第一]]、[[美國憲法第二修正案|第二]]、[[美國憲法第四修正案|第四]]、[[美國憲法第六修正案|第六条修正案]]中的全部条款，还包括[[美国宪法第五修正案|第五修正案]]中除[[大陪审团]]条款外的所有内容，以及[[美国宪法第八修正案|第八修正案]]中的残酷和非常惩罚条款<ref name="levy">{{citeCite book|last=Levy|first=Leonard |title=Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: The Incorporation Theory (American Constitutional and Legal History Series) |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_0306700298 |last=Levy |first=Leonard |publisher=Da Capo Press |year=1970 |isbn=0-306-70029-8}}</ref>。虽然[[美國憲法第三修正案|第三条修正案]]尚未经最高法院应用到各州，但[[美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院|第二巡回上诉法院]]曾在1982年的{{link-en|英伯朗诉凯里案|Engblom v. Carey}}中将其应用到法院所管辖的几个州中<ref>Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (1982)</ref>。而[[美國憲法第七修正案|第七条修正案]]有关[[陪审团]]审理的权利已经法院裁决不适用于各州<ref name="levy" /><ref>{{Cite web |urldate=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/211/case.html1916-05-22 |title=''Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis'' (1916) |publisherurl=Supremehttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/211/case.html |access-date=1916-05-22 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |publisher=Supreme.justia.com |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-05-21 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521020631/http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/211/case.html }}</ref>，但其中的重新审查条款不但对联邦法院有效，而且对于“在州法院经陪审团审理并上诉到最高法院的案件”都有效<ref>{{citeCite web |year=1992 |title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition --> Amendments to the Constitution --> Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-8.htm |workaccess-date=2013-09-05 |website=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |accessdate=2013-09-05 |page=1464 |year=1992 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130114193908/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-10-8.htm |archivedate=2013-01-14 }}</ref>。

平等保护条款的诞生很大程度上是对实行[[黑人法令]]的州中缺乏平等法律保护的回应。根据黑人法令，黑人不能起诉，不能作为证人，也不能给出物证，而且在同等犯罪下，他们受到了惩罚也比白人更严厉<ref name="Goldstone" />{{rp|20, 23-24}}。这一条款规定在同等情况下，个人也应受到同等对待<ref>{{citeCite encyclopedia |year=2009 |title=Equal protection of the laws |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of American Law |publisher=Infobase |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=EHj_0R2rbxAC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Equal+Protection+Clause%22+encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JFG6UbaKI5TQ8wSGoYCABg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Equal%20Protection%20Clause%22%20encyclopedia&f=false |title=Equal protection of the laws |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of American Law |publisher=Infobase |last=Failinger |first=Marie |editor-firstlast=David AndrewSchultz |editor-lastfirst=SchultzDavid Andrew |pages=152-153 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |archive-date=2017-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107130609/https://books.google.com/books?id=EHj_0R2rbxAC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Equal+Protection+Clause%22+encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JFG6UbaKI5TQ8wSGoYCABg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Equal%20Protection%20Clause%22%20encyclopedia&f=false |archive-date=2017-01-07 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

虽然第十四条修正案在字面上只是把平等保护条款应用到各州，但最高法院在1954年的{{link-en|波林诉夏普案|Bolling v. Sharpe}}中认定，这一条款经第五修正案的正当程序条款，可以“反向合并”应用于联邦政府<ref>{{citeCite journal |last=Primus |first=Richard |year=2004-05 |title=Bolling Alone |journal=Columbia Law Review |year=2004-05 |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=464847 |accessdatejournal=2013-09-05Columbia |deadurl=noLaw Review |archivedate=2012archive-10-13 |archiveurlurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013224233/http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=464847 |archive-date=2012-10-13 |access-date=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>''Bolling v. Sharpe'', 347 U.S. 497 (1954)</ref>。

<blockquote>“法院不希望听到宪法第十四条修正案中有关一州不能在其管辖范围内拒绝给予任何人平等法律保护的规定是否适用于这些公司的争论，我们全部都认为它适用。”<ref name="Johnson2001">{{citeCite book |lasturl=Johnson |firsthttp://books.google.com/books?id=XPDqMQv0Y6QC&pg=John W.PA446 |title=Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia |urllast=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPDqMQv0Y6QC&pg=PA446Johnson |accessdatefirst=2013-09-05John W. |date=2001-01-01 |publisher=Routledge |accessdate=2013-09-05 |isbn=978-0-415-93755-9 |pages=446-447 |archive-date=2020-08-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801171017/https://books.google.com/books?id=XPDqMQv0Y6QC&pg=PA446 |dead-url=no }}</ref></blockquote>

这一判词表明在平等保护条款下公司同样享有与个人一样的平等保护，之后法院多次重申了这一观点<ref name="Johnson2001" />，并在整个20世纪中占有主流地位，直到包括[[休戈·布萊克]]和[[威廉·道格拉斯]]在内的大法官提出了质疑<ref>{{citeCite encyclopedia |year=2003 |title=Corporations |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues: 1789 - 2002 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |editor-last=Vile |editor-first=John R.|editor-last=Vile |page=116 }}</ref>。

在第十四条修正案通过后的几十年里，最高法院先是在1880年的{{link-en|斯特劳德诉西弗吉尼亚案|Strauder v. West Virginia}}中推翻了禁止黑人担任[[陪审员]]的法律<ref>''Strauder v. West Virginia'', {{ussc|100|303|1880}}</ref>，后又于1886年的{{link-en|益和诉霍普金斯案|Yick Wo v. Hopkins}}中裁定歧视[[美籍华人]]的洗衣店条例无效，理由均是这些法律/条例违反了平等保护条款<ref>''Yick Wo v. Hopkins'', {{ussc|118|356|1886}}</ref>。然而到了1896年的[[普莱西诉弗格森案]]中，最高法院裁定只要各州可以提供类似的设施，那么就可以在这些设施的基础上实行[[种族隔离]]政策，这一隔离被称之为[[隔离但平等]]<ref>''Plessy v. Ferguson'', {{ussc|163|537|1896}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |last=Abrams |first=Eve |date=2009-02-12 |title=Plessy/Ferguson plaque dedicated |url=http://wwno.org/post/plessy-v-ferguson-plaque-dedicated |title=Plessy/Ferguson plaque dedicated |last=Abrams |first=Eve |access-date=20092013-0209-1205 |publisher=WWNO (University New Orleans Public Radio) |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115143808/http://wwno.org/post/plessy-v-ferguson-plaque-dedicated |archivedate=2013-01-15 }}</ref>。

在1908年的{{link-en|伯利亚学院诉肯塔基州案|Berea College v. Kentucky}}中，最高法院对平等保护条款增加了进一步的限制，裁定各州可以禁止高校施行黑白同校<ref>''Berea College v. Kentucky'', {{ussc|211|45|1908}}</ref>。到了20世纪初，平等保护条款已经黯然失色，大法官[[小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯]]称其是“宪法辩论中万不得已才会使用的最后手段”<ref>{{citeCite web |urlauthor=http://wwwHolmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html |title=274 U.S. 200: Buck v. Bell |authorurl=Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jrhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html |access-date=2013-06-12 |publisher=Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute |accessdate=2013-06-12 |archivedate=2013-06-12 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6HKPK9cdw?url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html |deadurl=yes }}</ref>。

美國最高法院支持的“隔离但平等”超过半个世纪，这一过程中法院已在多个案件里发现各州在隔离情况下分别提供的设施几乎没有均等的。一直到1954年的布朗訴托皮卡教育局案上诉到最高法院后，事情才有了转机。在这个里程碑性质的判决中，最高法院以全体一致的投票结果推翻了普莱西诉弗格森案中有关种族隔离合法的判决。法院认为，即使黑人和白人学校都拥有同等的师资水平，隔离本身对于黑人学生就是一种伤害，因此是违宪的。<ref>''Brown v. Board of Education'', {{ussc|347|483|1954}}</ref>这一判决受到了南方多个州的强烈抵制，之后长达几十年的时间里，联邦法院一直试图强制执行布朗案的判决，来对抗南方部分州通过各种手段反复试图规避种族融合的作法<ref>{{citeCite book|last=Patterson|first=James |title=Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History) |last=Patterson |first=James |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2002 |isbn=0-19-515632-3}}</ref>。联邦法院在全国各地都制订了充满争议的废除种族隔离校车法令并流传下来<ref>{{citeCite news |url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912178,00.html |title=Forced Busing and White Flight |work=Time |date=1978-09-25 |work=Time |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130823201601/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C912178%2C00.html |archivedate=2013-08-23 |dead-url=no}}</ref>。在2007年的{{link-en|家长参与社区学校诉西雅图第一学区教育委员会案|Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1}}中，法院裁定家长不能根据种族因素来判断应该把自己的孩子送到哪一所公立学校念书<ref>{{citeCite web |urllast=Greenhouse |first=Linda |date=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/-06/-29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |title=Justices Limit the Use of Race in School Plans for Integration |lasturl=Greenhouse |firsthttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html?pagewanted=Lindaall&_r=0 |access-date=20072013-0609-2905 |publisher=The New York Times |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-01-17 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117013447/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29scotus.html }}</ref>。

在1954年的{{link-en|埃尔南德斯诉得克萨斯州案|Hernandez v. Texas}}中，最高法院判决第十四条修正案同样对既非白人，也不是黑人的其他种族和族裔群体提供保护，例如本案中的[[墨西哥裔美国人]]<ref>''Hernandez v. Texas'', {{ussc|347|475|1954}}</ref>。在布朗案之后的半个世纪里，法院将平等保护条款延伸到其他历史上的弱势群体，如女性和非婚生子女，虽然判定这些群体是否受到歧视的标准不如种族歧视那么严格<ref>''United States v. Virginia'', {{ussc|518|515|1996}}</ref><ref>''Levy v. Louisiana'', {{ussc|361|68|1968}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |lasturl=Gerstmann|first=Evanhttps://archive.org/details/constitutionalun00gers |title=The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection |urllast=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalun00gersGerstmann |first=Evan |publisher=University Of Chicago Press |year=1999 |isbn=0-226-28860-9}}</ref>。

在1971年的[[里德诉里德案]]中，最高法院推翻了爱达荷州偏袒男性的遗嘱认证法律<ref>''Reed v. Reed'', {{ussc|404|71|1971}}</ref>，这是最高法院首度裁定任意的性别歧视违反平等保护条款<ref name="Reed" />。在1976年的{{link-en|克雷格诉博伦案|Craig v. Boren}}中，法律判决法定或行政性的[[性别]]分类必须接受不偏不倚的司法审查<ref>''Craig v. Boren'', {{ussc|429|190|1976}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Karst, Kenneth L. |date=2000-01-01 |title=Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976) |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000655.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206004636/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425000655.html |archive-date=2016-02-06 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。之后，里德和克雷格案成为先例，被多次援引并推翻了多个州的性别歧视法律<ref name="Reed">{{Cite web |date=2001-01-01 |title=Reed v. Reed 1971 |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000128.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206004636/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000128.html |archive-date=2016-02-06 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Supreme Court Drama: Cases that Changed America |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。

自1964年的{{link-en|韦斯伯里诉桑德斯案|Wesberry v. Sanders}}和{{link-en|雷诺兹诉西姆斯案|Reynolds v. Sims}}开始，法律已经将平等保护条款解读为要求各州按一人一票的原则分摊国会选区和州议会席位<ref>Wesberry v. Sanders, {{ussc|376|1|1964}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Wesberry v. Sanders|vol=376|reporter=U.S.|opinion=1|year=1964|url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_22}}</ref><ref>Reynolds v. Sims, {{ussc|377|533|1964}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Reynolds v. Sims |vol=377 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=533 |year=1964 |url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_23}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite book |last1url=Epstein|first1=Lee|last2=Walker|first2=Thomashttps://archive.org/details/constitutionalla0000epst_v2m6 G.|title=Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice |urlfirst=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalla0000epst_v2m6Lee |editionlast2=6thWalker |first2=Thomas G. |publisher=CQ Press |year=2007 |isbn=0-87187-613-2 |edition=6th |location=Washington, D.C. |page=775 |quote=''Wesberry'' and ''Reynolds'' made it clear that the Constitution demanded population-based representational units for the U.S. House of Representatives and both houses of state legislatures.... |isbnlast1=0-87187-613-2Epstein}}</ref>。法律还在1993年的{{link-en|肖诉里诺案|Shaw v. Reno}}中推翻了以种族为关键考量因素的重新划分选区规划<ref>''Shaw v. Reno'', {{ussc|509|630|1993}}</ref>，该案中北卡罗莱纳州打算通过这一规划来创造黑人占多数的社区，平衡该州在国会中代表名额不足的情况<ref>{{citeCite journal|last=Aleinikoff|first=T. Alexander|coauthors=Samuel Issacharoff|year=1993 |title=Race and Redistricting: Drawing Constitutional Lines after Shaw v. Reno |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_michigan-law-review_1993-12_92_3/page/588 |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=92|doi=10.2307/1289796|issue=3|publisher=Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 3 |volume=92 |issue=3 |page=588–651 |doi=10.2307/1289796 |jstor=1289796 |pagesauthors=588–651T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Samuel Issacharoff}}</ref>。

平等保护条款还是2000年布什诉戈尔案判决的基础。该案中最高法院认定没有哪一种宪法认可的方式可以在所需期限内完成对佛罗里达州在[[2000年美国总统选举]]中的重新计票<ref>''Bush v. Gore'', {{ussc|531|98|2000}}</ref>。这一判决确保布什最后赢得了这场存在争议的选举<ref>{{citeCite web |title=Bush v. Gore |url=http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/934324/Bush-v-Gore |title=Bush v. Gore |work=Encyclopaedia Britannica |accessdate=2013-09-05 |archive-date=2014-07-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708010148/http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/934324/Bush-v-Gore |archive-date=2014-07-08 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopaedia Britannica |dead-url=no }}</ref>。

在2006年的{{link-en|拉丁美洲裔公民联盟诉佩里案|League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry}}中，最高法院裁决众议院多数党领袖{{link-en|汤姆·迪莱|Tom DeLay}}的德克萨斯州选区重划方案有意摊薄[[拉丁裔美国人]]的选票，因此违反了平等保护条款<ref>''League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry'', {{ussc|548|399|2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Daniels, Gilda R. |date=2012-03-22 |title=Fred Gray: life, legacy, lessons |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-302110471.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206004636/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-302110471.html |archive-date=2016-02-06 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Faulkner Law Review |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。

修正案的第二款改变了用来确定各州在联邦众议院席位数量的人口统计方式。在修正案通过前，这一方式来自宪法第一条第二款第三节，其中规定“众议员名额和直接税税额，在本联邦可包括的各州中，按照各自人口比例进行分配。各州人口数，按自由人总数加上所有其他人口的五分之三予以确定”<ref name="USC25" /><ref name="Li1999" />，而第十四条修正案第二款则将最后的“五分之三”去除，改为“众议员名额，应按各州人口比例进行分配，此人口数包括一州的全部人口数”<ref name="USC25" /><ref name="Li1999" />。

第二款还规定“一州的年满21岁并且是合众国公民的任何男性居民，除因参加叛乱或其他犯罪外，如其选举权遭到拒绝或受到任何方式的限制，则该州代表权的基础，应按以上男性公民的人数同该州年满21岁男性公民总人数的比例予以削减。”但这一禁令从未被执行，南方各州继续使用各种借口防止许多黑人投票，直到《[[1965年投票权法]]》通过后这个问题才得到了解决<ref>{{Cite web |author=Friedman, Walter |date=2006-01-01 |title=Fourteenth Amendment |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3444700477.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714223753/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3444700477.html |archive-date=2014-07-14 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。此外，由于这一条款只保护了年满21岁男性的投票权，对女性只字未提，所以也成了美国宪法唯一存在明确性别歧视的部分<ref name="Foner1987" />。

有观点认为，第二款已由[[美利坚合众国宪法第十五条修正案|第十五条修正案废除]]<ref>{{citeCite journal |last=Chin |first=Gabriel J. |year=2004 |title=Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement, and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth? |journal=Georgetown Law Journal |volume=92 |page=259}}</ref>，但最高法院在之后的一些决定中仍然援引了这部分内容。如1974年的{{link-en|理查德森诉拉米瑞兹案|Richardson v. Ramirez}}中，最高法院援引第2款来作为州剥夺重刑犯投票权的依据<ref>''Richardson v. Ramirez'', {{ussc|418|24|1974}}</ref>。

第三款规定：“无论何人，凡先前曾以国会议员、或合众国官员、或任何州议会议员、或任何州行政或司法官员的身份宣誓维护合众国宪法，以后又对合众国作乱或反叛，或给予合众国敌人帮助或鼓励，都不得担任国会参议员或众议员、或总统和副总统选举人，或担任合众国或任何州属下的任何文职或军职官员。但国会得以两院各2/3的票数取消此种限制。”<ref name="USC25" />{{rp|574-575}}<ref name="Li1999" /><ref>{{Cite web |urldate=http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html1933-06-05 |title=Sections 3 and 4: Disqualification and Public Debt |publisherurl=Caselaw.lphttp://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html |access-date=19332013-0609-05 |accessdatepublisher=2013-09-05Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com |archivedate=2013-06-25 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625150005/http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html }}</ref>。

1975年，国会通过一项联合决议案恢复了[[美利堅聯盟國]]将军[[羅伯特·李]]的公民权<ref>{{citeCite journal |year=2005 |title=Pieces of History: General Robert E. Lee's Parole and Citizenship |url=http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html |journal=Prologue Magazine |publisher=The National Archives |volume=37 |issue=1 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013archive-07-30 |archiveurlurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730213457/http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html |urlarchive-date=http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece2013-lee.html07-30 |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no}}</ref>。1978年，国会根据第三款去除了针对前南方邦联总统[[傑佛遜·戴維斯]]的公职服务禁令<ref>{{Cite web |urllast=http://hnnGoodman |first=Bonnie K.us/blogs/archives/52/ |year=2006/10/ |title=History Buzz: October 16, 2006: This Week in History |lasturl=Goodman |first=Bonnie Khttp://hnn.us/blogs/archives/52/2006/10/ |yearaccess-date=20062009-09-08 |workwebsite=History News Network |accessdate=2009-09-08 |quote=17/10/1978 - Pres Carter signs bill restoring Jefferson Davis citizenship |deadurl=yes |archivedate=2009-09-08 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090908040447/http://hnn.us/blogs/archives/52/2006/10/ }}</ref>。

第三款曾被用来防止[[美国社会党 (1901年)|美国社会党]]成员[[维克多·L·伯格尔]]当选1919至1920年的联邦众议员，因为他的反[[军国主义]]观点被裁定违反了《[[间谍法]]》。<ref>{{citationCitation |title=Chapter 157: The Oath As Related To Qualifications |work=Cannon's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives |volume=6 |date=1936-01-01 |accessdateurl=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-20 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130620130834/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6/html/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6-10.htm |urlarchiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130620130834/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6/html/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6-10.htm |deadurl=no |work=Cannon's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives |volume=6 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |archivedate=2013-06-20}}</ref>

第四款确认了国会拨出的所有[[美國國債]]的合法性。并确认无论联邦政府还是任何一个州都不会偿还南方邦联因失去奴隶导致的损失以及因对抗北方的战事而欠下的债务。例如南北战争期间，多家[[英国]]和[[法国]][[银行]]给予邦联巨额贷款，以在战争中支持他们对抗[[北军|北方]]<ref>{{citeCite web|url=http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html#1 |publisher=Findlaw.com |title=SECTIONS 3 AND 4. DISQUALIFICATION AND PUBLIC DEBT |accessdateurl=http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html#1 |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=Findlaw.com |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-25 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625150005/http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation37.html }}</ref>。在1935年的佩里诉美国案（{{lang|en|Perry v. United States}}）中，最高法院根据第四款判决一种美国债券失效，并且这一失效已经“超越了国会权利（所能影响的）范围”<ref>''Perry v. United States''{{ussc|294|330|1935}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=294 U.S. 330 at 354 |url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&invol=330#354 |titleaccess-date=294 U.S. 330 at 3542013-09-05 |publisher=Findlaw.com |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-05-23 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523053931/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&invol=330 }}</ref>。

2011年的[[美國債務上限危機]]对第四款给予总统的权力提出了疑问，截止2013年8月，这个问题仍然没有解决<ref>{{citeCite news|last=Liptak |firsturl=Adamhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.html |title=The 14th Amendment, the Debt Ceiling and a Way Out |urllast=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/politics/25legal.htmlLiptak |first=Adam |work=The New York Times |date=2011-07-24 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130404094314/https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=https%3A%2F%2Fsummer-heart-0930.chufeiyun1688.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F07%2F25%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2F25legal.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ30 |archivedate=2013-04-04 |dead-url=no |quote=In recent weeks, law professors have been trying to puzzle out the meaning and relevance of the provision. Some have joined Mr. Clinton in saying it allows Mr. Obama to ignore the debt ceiling. Others say it applies only to Congress and only to outright default on existing debts. Still others say the president may do what he wants in an emergency, with or without the authority of the 14th Amendment. |date=2011-07-24 }}</ref>。包括[[美国财政部长]][[蒂莫西·F·蓋特納]]、法律学者加勒特·伊普斯（{{lang|en|Garrett Epps}}）、财政专家{{link-en|布鲁斯·巴特利特|Bruce Bartlett}}在内的多人认为债务上限可能是违宪的，所以只要它干扰了政府支付未偿还债券利息和退休金的义务，就应该是无效的<ref>{{citeCite news |url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/ |title=Our National Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says |newspaper=The Atlantic |date=2011-05-04 |accessdatenewspaper=2013-09-05The |deadurl=noAtlantic |archivedateaccessdate=2013-09-05-21 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521013252/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/ |archivedate=2013-05-21 |dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{citeCite web |author=Sahadi, Jeanne |date=2011-07-07 |title=Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional? |url=http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/30/news/economy/debt_ceiling_constitution/index.htm |publisher=CNN Money |accessdateaccess-date=2013-09-05 |authorpublisher=Sahadi,CNN Jeanne |date=2011-07-07Money |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-15 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615164109/http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/30/news/economy/debt_ceiling_constitution/index.htm }}</ref>。

法律分析师{{link-en|杰弗里·罗森|Jeffrey Rosen}}曾辩称第四款给予总统单方面授权来提高或忽略国家债务上限，如果到达最高法院，那么裁决将很可能是扩大行政权或是案件因缺乏诉讼资格而遭驳回<ref>{{citeCite web |last=Rosen |first=Jeffrey |title=How Would the Supreme Court Rule on Obama Raising the Debt Ceiling Himself? |url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling |deadurlaccess-date=no2013-09-05 |workwebsite=The New Republic |accessdatedeadurl=2013-09-05no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130125010434/http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/92884/supreme-court-obama-debt-ceiling |archivedate=2013-01-25 }}</ref>。[[加州大学欧文分校法学院]]教授兼院长{{link-en|欧文·切默林斯基|Erwin Chemerinsky}}认为即便是有一个“严峻的财政危机”，总统也不能提高债务上限，因为“没有任何一种合理的方式可以从宪法中解读出（允许他这样做的含义）”<ref>{{citeCite news|last=Chemerinsky |first=Erwin |title=The Constitution, Obama and raising the debt ceiling |url=http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html |worktitle=LosThe AngelesConstitution, TimesObama and raising the debt ceiling |accessdatelast=JulyChemerinsky 30,|first=Erwin 2011|work=Los Angeles Times |date=2013-09-05 |deadurlaccessdate=noJuly 30, 2011 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121122531/http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/erwin-chemerinsky-on-why-obama-cant-raise-the-debt-ceiling.html |archivedate=2013-01-21 |dead-url=no}}</ref>。

* {{citeCite book |authorurl=William Ehttp://quod. Nelsonlib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb00490 |title=The Fourteenth Amendment: from political principle to judicial doctrine |publisherlast=HarvardWilliam UniversityE. PressNelson |date=1998-08-11 |urlpublisher=http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb00490Harvard University Press |accessdate=2013-09-05 |isbn=978-0674316263 |archive-date=2020-07-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200702035235/https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb00490 |dead-url=no }}

* {{citeCite book |lasturl=Bogen|firsthttp://books.google.com/books?id=DavidAIA6Ya8oKB8C S.|title=Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution |urllast=http://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8CBogen |accessdatefirst=29David MarchS. 2013|date=2003-04-30 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |accessdate=29 March 2013 |isbn=9780313313479 |archive-date=2020-09-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926030135/https://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8C |dead-url=no}}

* {{citeCite book |lasturl=Halbrook |firsthttp://books.google.com/books?id=Stephen P.0Pt2rd3w32IC |title=Freedmen, the 14th Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 |urllast=http://booksHalbrook |first=Stephen P.google.com/books?id |publisher=0Pt2rd3w32ICGreenwood Publishing Group |accessdate=2013-09-05 |year=1998 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=9780275963316 |archive-date=2020-09-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200923002842/https://books.google.com/books?id=0Pt2rd3w32IC |dead-url=no }} at Questia [http://www.questia.com/library/120073316/freedmen-the-fourteenth-amendment-and-the-right] {{Wayback|url=http://www.questia.com/library/120073316/freedmen-the-fourteenth-amendment-and-the-right |date=20200519102005 }}

* {{citeCite book |lasturl=Bogen |firsthttp://books.google.com/books?id=David S.AIA6Ya8oKB8C |title=Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution |urllast=http://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8CBogen |accessdatefirst=2013-09-05David S. |date=2003-04-30 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |accessdate=2013-09-05 |isbn=9780313313479 |archive-date=2020-09-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926030135/https://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8C |dead-url=no }}

*{{citeCite web |title=Annotated Constitution |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html |titleaccess-date=Annotated Constitution2013-09-01 |publisher=Cornell University Law School |accessdate=2013-09-01 |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-09-01 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130901210025/http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html }}

*{{citeCite web |urldate=http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html2012-08-24 |title=Primary Documents in American History: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution |publisherurl=The Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html |access-date=2012-08-24 |accessdate=2013-09-05 |publisher=The Library of Congress |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828001038/http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html |archivedate=2013-08-28 |deadurl=no }}

* {{citeCite web |title=Amendments to the Constitution of the United States |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf |format=PDF |title=Amendments to the Constitution of the United States |work=GPO Access |access-date=2013-09-10 |archive-date=2018-11-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113093713/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf |archive-date=2018-11-13 |access-date=2013-09-10 |website=GPO Access |format=PDF |dead-url=no }}（PDF格式，提供有修正案和批准日期的文本内容）

*[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html 国家档案馆上第11十一至第27条二十七修正案的原文页面]{{Wayback|url=http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html |date=20130526170111 }}

[[Category:美国宪國憲法第十四修正案| ]]

[[Category:美國人權|国宪法修正案|14]]

[[Category:1868年美国國法律]]