This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
14th Amendment Agreement With China In Clark
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Clark
Control #:
US-000280
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
On March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that children born in the United States, even to parents not eligible to become citizens, were nonetheless citizens themselves under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen.
Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins was significant because it set a precedent for members of racial minorities to receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law. It argued that even if a law was written with race-neutral wording, discriminatory applications of that law were still unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection" protects against discrimination based on many different factors, including race. In this article, you can learn more about Supreme Court cases concerning racial discrimination and equal protection.
This attitude changed dramatically in 1954 when the justices concluded that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment made racially segregated schools unconstitutional. The Court has gradually adopted a much broader interpretation of the amendment that extends greater protection to women, minorities, and noncitizens.
The Yick Wo doctrine, also known as the Yik Woh principle, is a legal principle that states that a law or ordinance that gives a person or entity absolute discretion to grant or deny permission to carry on a lawful business violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges or immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One.
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.