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。

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">{{Cite 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 |publisher=Walker & Company |accessdate=2013-09-02 |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-8027-1792-4 |ref=harv |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">{{Cite book |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}}</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>{{Cite book |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}}

{{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">{{Cite book |title=When the War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865-1867 |last=Carter |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">{{Cite 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 |publisher=Columbia Law Review |volume=112 |issue=7 |page=1501-1549 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610203113/http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1501-1550.pdf |archive-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">{{Cite web |title=The Civil War And Reconstruction |url=http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407120920eaifas0.4535639.html |access-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>{{Cite 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 |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>

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>{{Cite journal |year=2008 |title=Beyond the Supermajority: Post-Adoption Ratification of the Equality Amendments |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805 |journal=Arizona Law Review |volume=50 |page=25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016141348/http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076805 |archive-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">{{Cite book |title=The Second American Revolution |last=Eric Foner |publisher=New York University Press |year=2000 |isbn=0814782493 |series=Civil Rights Since 1787 |chapter=In These Times |editor1=Jonathan Birnbaum |editor2=Clarence Taylor}}</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>{{Cite journal |date=2009-04-02 |title=Finkelman, Paul, John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment |journal=Akron Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 671, 2003 |publisher=Ssrn.com |ssrn=1120308}}</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>{{Cite journal |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。

第十四条修正案规定任何在美国出生的儿童生来就是美国公民，不需考虑其父母的国籍<ref name="Lee">{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Margaret |date=2010-08-12 |title=Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents |url=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=Congressional Research Service |quote=Over the last decade or so, concern about illegal immigration has sporadically led to a re-examination of a long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship, codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), that a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. [...] "some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was considered in Congress and ratified by the states. |deadurl=no |archivedate=2012-09-11 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911205736/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf}}</ref>。修正案通过时，包括《1866年民权法案》作者[[特朗布尔]]在内的三位参议员以及总统[[安德鲁·约翰逊]]都断言，《1866年民权法案》和第十四条修正案都将赋予这样出生的儿童公民权，对此没有参议员提出不同意见<ref name="trumbullcowan">{{Cite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 498 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412142710/http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070%2Fllcg070.db&recNum=603 |archive-date=2021-04-12 |access-date=2013-09-04 |publisher=the Library of Congress |quote=The debate on the Civil Rights Act contained the following exchange:<br>Mr. Cowan: "I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?"<br>Mr. Trumbull: "Undoubtedly."<br>...<br>Mr. Trumbull: "I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."<br>Mr. Cowan: "The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument."<br>Mr. Trumbull: "If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European." |dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2891-2 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 |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 |quote=During the debate on the Amendment, Senator John Conness of California declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens." |dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Andrew Johnson |title=Veto of the Civil Rights Bill |url=http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/veto-of-the-civil-rights-bill/ |access-date=2013-09-04 |website=teachingamericanhistory.org |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-08-29 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130829163129/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/veto-of-the-civil-rights-bill/}}</ref>。由于1866年时还不存在非法移民的问题，这些国会议员的意见对于那些合法居留在美国而生下孩子的父母来说是适用的。虽然这以后法律仍然根据出生地原则的标准进行解释，但有些学者对公民权条款是否适用于非法移民留有质疑<ref name="Lee" />。时间进入21世纪后，国会曾偶尔讨论过对该条款进行修订，以减少[[生育旅行]]现象的出现，这一现象指的是怀有身孕的外国人仕为了让孩子获得美国国籍而进入美国境内进行生育<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010-08-10 |title=14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done' |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0810/14th-Amendment-why-birthright-citizenship-change-can-t-be-done |access-date=2013-09-04 |website=Christian Science Monitor |archivedate=2013-06-13 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6HKkZWGn2?url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0810/14th-Amendment-why-birthright-citizenship-change-can-t-be-done |deadurl=no}}</ref>。

在1898年的[[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">{{Cite 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 |format=PDF |journal=U. Pa. J. Const. L. |volume=11 |page=1363–1475 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715063130/http://www.pennjcl.com/issues/11/11.5/11-5%20Rodriguez.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-15 |access-date=2011-07-15 |deadurl=yes}}</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 |title=Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans) |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 |title=International Law, A Treatise |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 |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 |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 |pages=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 |place=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |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 |title=Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States 1776-1949 (compiled under the direction of Charles. I. Bevans) |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>{{Cite web |last=Yoo |first=John |date=2002-06-12 |title=Survey of the Law of Expatriation: Memorandum Opinion for the Solicitor General |url=http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm |access-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>。

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>{{Cite book |url=http://www.amazon.com/Privileges-Immunities-Reference-Constitution-ebook/dp/B001ECQKR0 |title=Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution |last=Bogen |first=David |date=2003-04-30 |publisher=Praeger |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>。

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">{{Cite book |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 |title=Constitutional Government: The American Experience |publisher=Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company |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>{{Cite 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}}</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">{{Cite journal |last=Cord |first=Robert L. |year=1987 |title=The Incorporation Doctrine and Procedural Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment: An Overview |url=http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1987/3/cor.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Brigham Young University Law Review |issue=3 |page=868 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100622000919/http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1987/3/cor.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-22 |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 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606021952/http://law.jrank.org/pages/6312/Due-Process-Law-Substantive-Due-Process.html |archivedate=2013-06-06 |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>{{Cite web |title=CRS Annotated Constitution |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag8_user.html |access-date=2013-06-12 |publisher=Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute |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条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>{{Cite 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 |last=Foster |first=James C. |editor-last=Finkleman |editor-first=Paul |pages=145 |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>{{Cite journal |last=Amar |first=Akhil Reed |year=1992 |title=The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment |url=http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html |journal=Yale Law Journal |publisher=The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 101, No. 6 |volume=101 |issue=6 |page=1193–1284 |doi=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 |date=1968-05-20 |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=2013-09-05 |publisher=Cornell Law School – Legal Information Institute |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">{{Cite book |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 |date=1916-05-22 |title=''Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis'' (1916) |url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/211/case.html |access-date=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>{{Cite 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 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=U.S. Government Printing Office |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |page=1464 |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>。

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>{{Cite journal |last=Primus |first=Richard |year=2004-05 |title=Bolling Alone |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=464847 |journal=Columbia Law Review |archive-url=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">{{Cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPDqMQv0Y6QC&pg=PA446 |title=Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia |last=Johnson |first=John 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>

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>{{Cite web |last=Abrams |first=Eve |date=2009-02-12 |title=Plessy/Ferguson plaque dedicated |url=http://wwno.org/post/plessy-v-ferguson-plaque-dedicated |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=WWNO (University New Orleans Public Radio) |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115143808/http://wwno.org/post/plessy-v-ferguson-plaque-dedicated |archivedate=2013-01-15}}</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 |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalun00gers |title=The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection |last=Gerstmann |first=Evan |publisher=University Of Chicago Press |year=1999 |isbn=0-226-28860-9}}</ref>。

在1978年的[[加州大学董事会诉巴基案]]中，最高法院判定[[公立大学]]招生中的根据[[平权法案]]制订的{{link-en|种族配额|racial quota}}政策违反了《[[1964年民權法案]]》第6条，但是种族可以作为招生中考虑的一个因素，并且不会违反第6条和第十四条修正案的平等保护条款<ref>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, {{ussc|438|265|1978}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Supreme Court Drama: Cases That Changed America |year=2001 |title=Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 1978 |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000109.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206004636/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3457000109.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>。在2003年的{{link-en|[[格拉茨诉布林格案|Gratz v. Bollinger}}]]和[[格鲁特诉布林格案]]里裡，[[密歇根大学]]声称要通过两类向少数族裔提供招生倾斜的政策来实现学校的[[文化差異|种族多样性]]<ref>Gratz v. Bollinger, {{ussc|539|244|2003}}</ref><ref>Grutter v. Bollinger, {{ussc|539|306|2003}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Alger |first=Jonathan |date=2003-10-11 |title=Grutter/Gratz and Beyone: the Diversity Leadership Challenge |url=http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/overview/challenge.html |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=University of Michigan |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110813090527/http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/overview/challenge.html |archivedate=2011-08-13 |deadurl=yes}}</ref>。在格拉兹案中，法院认为该校以分数为标准的本科招生制度中，为少数族裔加分的做法违反了平等保护条款；而在格鲁兹案里，法院同意该校法学院在招生时，把种族作为确定录取学生的多个考虑因素之一<ref>{{Cite web |author=Eckes, Susan B. |date=2004-01-01 |title=Race-Conscious Admissions Programs: Where Do Universities Go From Gratz and Grutter? |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-535368561.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206004636/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-535368561.html |archive-date=2016-02-06 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Journal of Law and Education |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。在2013年的{{link-en|费舍尔诉德州大学案|Fisher v. University of Texas}}中，法院要求公立学校只有在没有可行的种族中立替代方案时，才能把种族因素纳入招生制度进行考虑<ref>{{Cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy |date=2013-06-24 |title=Finally! The Fisher decision in Plain English |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165685 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130629185348/http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165685 |archive-date=2013-06-29 |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=SCOTUSblog |dead-url=no}}</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" />。

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>{{Cite 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>。

第五款也称第十四条修正案执法条款，该条款允许国会通过“适当立法”来实施修正案的规定<ref name="McCulloch-theory">{{Cite web |author=Engel, Steven A. |date=1999-10-01 |title=The McCulloch theory of the Fourteenth Amendment: City of Boerne v. Flores and the original understanding of section 5 |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58054592.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509082224/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58054592.html |archive-date=2013-05-09 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Yale Law Journal |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kovalchick |first=Anthony |date=2007-02-15 |title=Judicial Usurpation of Legislative Power: Why Congress Must Reassert its Power to Determine What is Appropriate Legislation to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/chlr10&div=8 |journal=Chapman Law Review |volume=10 |issue=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150503220316/http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals%2Fchlr10&div=8 |archive-date=2015-05-03 |access-date=2013-09-05 |dead-url=no}}</ref>。在1883年的民权案件中，最高法院以狭隘的角度解读第五款，称国会因该条款获得的立法权不能用来进行一般公民权利的立法，而只是作为矫正、补救立法<ref name="CRC" />。换言之，法院认为该条款只授权国会立法打击其它几款中规定的侵犯权利行为<ref>{{Cite web |title=FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, p. 40 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/40.html |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-25 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625153047/http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation40.html}}</ref>。

在1966年的{{link-en|卡森巴克诉摩根案|Katzenbach v. Morgan}}中，法院支持了《1965年投票权法》的第4(e)款，其中禁止以通过读写测试为投票先决条件，法院认为这一款是国会对平等保护条款授权的有效行使。法院认为修正案第五款允许国会采取行动补救或预防该修正案保护的权利受到侵害<ref>''Katzenbach v. Morgan'', {{ussc|384|641|1966}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author=Eisenberg, Theodore |date=2000-01-01 |title=''Katzenbach v. Morgan'' 384 U.S. 641 (1966) |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001431.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924171050/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3425001431.html |archive-date=2015-09-24 |access-date=2013-09-05 |website=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |publisher={{Subscription required|via=HighBeam Research}} |dead-url=yes}}</ref>。这也是最高法院对第五款给予的一个较为宽泛的解释<ref>{{Cite web |title=FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment, p. 40 |url=http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation40.html |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com |deadurl=no |archivedate=2013-06-25 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625153047/http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation40.html}}</ref>。但是到了1997年的{{link-en|伯尼市诉弗洛雷斯案|City of Boerne v. Flores}}中，法院收窄了国会的执法权，称国会不得根据第五款制订对第十四条修正案权利进行实质定义或解读的法律<ref name="Boerne">''City of Boerne v. Flores'', {{ussc|521|507|1997}}</ref><ref name="McCulloch-theory" />。称“任何认为国会在第十四条修正案下拥有其它独立存在且非补救性质权力的意见，本院的判例法均不予支持。<ref>{{Cite web |date=1997-06-25 |title='&#39;City of Boerne v. Flores'&#39;, Opinion of the Court, Part III-A-3 |url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZO.html |access-date=2013-09-05 |publisher=Supct.law.cornell.edu |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728124558/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZO.html |archivedate=2013-07-28}}</ref>”法院裁定，如果国会根据第五款立法保护的公民权利与修正案其它条款“一致和相称”，那么这项立法就是有效的，国会的立法目标应该是防止或补救对这些公民权利的伤害<ref name="Boerne" />。

*[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]]