Arguments Against The 14th Amendment

Words: 664
Pages: 3

July 1868 the fourteenth amendment was ratified into the constitution. The fourteenth amendment was to state that all born or naturalized in the United States were citizens. Also stating that laws should not be created to take away the privileges or derive these citizens of life, liberty, or property. However, under circumstances of national emergency it justifies creating laws and rules applicable to only those of certain ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds. Though it seems to go against the amendment it is to protect the overall american way of life and the country as a whole. The laws may only be authorized for a short period of time or an extended amount of time. The laws against whoever it may be is only okay in the fact that it is to ensure safety for the general public.

It is acceptable to make rules and laws against certain races during national emergency to ensure safety to the majority of the public. The percent that is effected will always be less than majority. In order to protect most citizens and take caution on the safety of them making rules and laws against some parts of the population should be accepted to establish protection of the united states as a whole. During WWII the Japanese were interned after the bombing of Pearl Harbor due to the fear after the destruction that Japan inflicted on the
…show more content…
During the 1930’s through the 1950’s when blacks were segregated in different schools bathrooms theaters neighborhoods and in all other aspects. This idea wasn't quite as extreme as the Japanese internment camps it is the same idea. Blacks were not at war with the united states or intending to harm our country from a different country at all. In this sense creating a law against these people because of the color of their skin and not on the safety of the United States as a whole was