Prvý oddíl čtrnáctého dodatku Ústavy Spojených států: původní význam a výklad

The paper analyzes the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its four key clauses – the citizenship clause, the priviliges or immunities clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause. Special attention is paid to the debates of the members of the 39th Congress which offer an insight into the original understanding of terms and phrases used in the text of the Amendment and that make possible to understand the context of its origin. The paper tries to describe the most likely original meaning of the individual clauses of the first section and analyze their possible various interpretations that often stand in direct opposition. While it can be reasonably assumed that during the times of the passing and ratification of the Amendment its objective was fairly limited, reflecting the post-war political reality in the United States, during the decades following ratification the Amendment started to be applied to issues that until then had been completely in the hands of the legislatures and depending on the democratic discussion on both federal and state level. The authors quoted in this paper can not be assigned to just one method of interpretation and legal philosophy, to the contrary, the paper aims to confront different views on the Amendment and its original meaning and based on it reach a conclusion; therefore both the view seeing the meaning of the Amendment as limited, held for example by professors Charles Fairman and Raoul Berger, and the perspective that sees its objectives as broader, represented for example by professors Michael Kent Curtis and Randy Barnett, are mentioned.

1. AMAR, A. The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Yale Law Journal, 1992, Vol. 101, s. 1236. [online]. Dostupné na: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=2005&context=fss_papers. CrossRef

2. AYNES, R. L. On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Yale Law Journal, 1993, Vol. 103, s. 71. [online]. Dostupné na: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7516&context=ylj. CrossRef

3. BAER, J. A. Equality under the Constitution: Reclaiming the Fourteenth Amendment. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.

4. BARNETT, R. E. - BERNICK, E. D. The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021. CrossRef

5. BERGER, R. Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second Edition. Carmel: Liberty Fund, 1997.

6. BERGER, R. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment: A Nine-Lived Cat. Ohio State Law Journal, 1981, Vol. 42, s. 464. [online]. Dostupné na: https://kb.osu.edu/ handle/1811/65145.

7. BERGER, R. Paul Dimond Fails to "Meet Raoul Berger on Interpretivist Grounds". Ohio State Law Journal, 1982, Vol. 43, No. 2, s. 301. [online]. Dostupné na: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/65189/OSLJ_V43N2_0285.pdf.

8. BICKEL, A. M. The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision. Harvard Law Review, 1955, Vol. 69, No. 1, s. 16 [online]. Dostupné na: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ fss_papers/3972/. CrossRef

9. BORK, R. H. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: Touchstone, 1991.

10. CURTIS, M. K. No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Durham: Duke University Press, 1986.

11. DIMOND, Paul R. Strict Construction and Judicial Review of Racial Discrimination Under the Equal Protection Clause: Meeting Raoul Berger on Interpretivist Grounds. Michigan Law Review, 1981, Vol. 80, s. 467. [online]. Dostupné na: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol80/iss3/3/. CrossRef

12. FAIRMAN, C. Does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original Understanding. Stanford Law Review, 1949, Vol. 2, No. 1, s. 11. [online]. Dostupné na: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1226431?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents. CrossRef

13. LASH, K. T. Enforcing the Rights of Due Process: The Original Relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The Georgetown Law Journal, 2018, Vol. 106, s. 1410. [online]. Dostupné na: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications/1490/.

14. LASH, K. T. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. CrossRef

15. LASH, K. T. The Privileges or Immunities Clause and Unenumerated Rights. Law & Liberty, 21. 3. 2019. [online]. Dostupné na: https://lawliberty.org/the-privileges-or-immunities-clause-and- unenumerated-rights/.

16. SELTENREICH, R. - KUKLÍK, Jan, Dějiny angloamerického práva. 2 vydání. Praha: Leges, 2011.

17. STORY, J. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Volume III. New York: Cossimo Classics, 2020.

18. SUNSTEIN, C. R. Constitutional Myth-Making: Lessons from the Dred Scott Case. Occasional Papers, 1996, No. 37, s. 11. [online]. Dostupné na: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/ 1/12942329.

19. TENBROEK, J. Equal Under Law. New York: Collier Books, 1965.

20. UPHAM, D. R. Corfield v. Coryell and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. Texas Law Review, 2005, Vol. 83, s. 1517. [online]. Dostupné na: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Corfield-v.-Coryell.pdf.

21. VAN ALSTYNE, W. W. The Fourteenth Amendment, the "Right" to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty-Ninth Congress. Faculty Publications, William & Mary Law School, 1965, s. 70. [online]. Dostupné na: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/779/. CrossRef

22. WALKER, Jr., F. H. Was it Intended That the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? North Carolina Law Review, 1964, Vol. 42, No. 4, s. 930. [online]. Dostupné na: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6079&context=nclr.