14th Ammendment? FAMILY COURT ASKS WHICH 14th AMMENDMENT?

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights Jon Roland 2000 Sep. 24 The main clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ... Section. 5.

 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This seemingly simple language has given rise to endless controversy over its interpretation. Beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court has decided cases involving the Fourteenth by selectively invoking only the most minimal and restrictive rights needed to decide each case, and never finding or declaring in dictum that the Fourteenth protects all rights recognized by the Constitution.

 This has led to the doctrine of selective incorporation of the Bill of rights, most of which have eventually been included in the protection, but a few of which have not. Two of the Bill of Rights that have not been "incorporated" are the Second Amendment and the Fifth. The Supreme Court has avoided taking any cases that would require it to rule on the right to keep and bear arms or assemble as an independent militia. It has, however, ruled that several provisions of the Fifth Amendment do not apply to the states. The first major case was Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), in which it held that a state was not required to indict by grand jury.

 The issues were set forth well by Justice Harlan in Hurtado, whose dissenting opinion is correct. Unfortunately, the majority did not agree with him. The state was California, and although grand juries in California still have the power of indictment, most crimes are prosecuted upon an information, which is only a finding by a lower magistrate. On the basis of this decision, a few states have even eliminated the grand jury system altogether

. Subsequent important cases were Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), which held a state is not required to protect the right against self-incrimination; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), which held a state is not required to protect the right against double jeopardy; and Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), which held that the decision of an accused not to testify may be used against him in a state criminal trial.