The American Experiment to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" fleshing out through 14th Amendment, historical context, privileges and immunities clause, citizenship clause, equal protection clause, and due process clause. Illustrated through Gore v. Bush.

1. Fourteenth Amendment
PSC 381 Bill of Rights

2. When will the American experiment
stop being an experiment?

3. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
-Preamble of the United States Constitution

4. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
-Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution

5. ● Civil War Ends May 9, 1865.
● Civil Rights Act of 1866.
● Confederate states were forced to ratify the 14th Amendment to
regain representation in the United States Congress.
○ Alabama originally rejects Amendment, then ratified July 13,
1868.
● Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
○ One of the three Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th &
15th.
● Civil Rights Act of 1870.
History

6. prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities
possessed by virtue of national citizenship.
Privileges and Immunities Clause

7. overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that people
descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United
States.
The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship,
Citizenship Clause

8. requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all
people within its jurisdiction.
Equal Protection Clause

9. prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons
of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most
of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize
substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must
satisfy.
Due Process Clause

10. 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.
Amendment XIV - Section 1

11. Facts: The Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in
Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 contested ballots from Miami-
Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must
immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots
which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were
enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in
doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney,
filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an
emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on
December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

12. Issue: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do
standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

13. Holding: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees
individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and
disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida
Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The
record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to
ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those
and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no
constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining
(which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take
advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

14. Holding (Cont’d): Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia
and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also
unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made
new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and
Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding, but
dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional
recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional
rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued
that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
ought to be respected - the Florida decision was fundamentally right;
the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

15. ● Drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized the inconsistencies in
the document itself.
● Drafters also recognized that in the document itself they had cast
a vision for a more perfect Union.
● Due process has evolved into the vehicle to attempt to achieve
that more perfect Union by way of imposing federal rights and
protections on state and local government.
● The American Experiment is still underway.
Recap

16. Attributions:
"Bush v. Gore." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949. Accessed 3 Apr. 2017.
For additional information:
Brandon L. Blankenship
UAB | Department of Government
(205)912-8248 | blbjd@uab.edu
Attributions and Additional Information: