您现在的位置是:关于我们 >>正文
Will the Supreme Court block an Oregon law criminalizing homelessness?
关于我们25人已围观
简介Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched ec ...
Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic inequality is particularly acute. One in four children in New York City lives in poverty. Black Americans are five times as likely as white Americans to reside in high-poverty neighborhoods. These figures are a testament to the pressing need to address economic inequality and the racial wealth disparity in this country. With the gap between the richest and poorest Americans growing, the Supreme Court on Monday hears oral argument in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, in which a host of states and localities will urge the justices to uphold an Oregon city’s ordinances that criminalize homelessness.
Fortunately, there is a tool available in this case—and in the fight against economic inequality generally—that has for far too long been underutilized in the realm of economic justice: the 14thAmendment.
It is well known that the 14thAmendment revolutionized our Constitution, changing a document that sanctioned bondage into one that promised liberation and equal citizenship. But this is only part of the story: The 14thAmendment was also adopted to safeguard the fundamental rights and equality of poor people. Although this aspect of the amendment has deep roots in its text and history, it has never been properly recognized by the courts.
Redressing the horrors and aftermath of slavery required sweeping guarantees to protect the most oppressed Americans—those who had been held in slavery, forced to toil their entire lives without pay, denied ownership of their bodies and brutalized, and left in abject poverty. One of the chief abuses the 14thAmendment sought to end were pernicious vagrancy laws in the post–Civil War Black Codes, which were designed to push Black Americans back into enslavement simply because they were poor. Southern efforts to criminalize Black poverty made a mockery of the freedom promised by abolition.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRepairing the Constitution required guarantees to protect the poorest and most marginalized Americans from state oppression and neglect. The Framers were adamant that “we shall not peril one single right of the poorest man that treads the soil of this country,” insisting that those on the margins of society were entitled to equal citizenship. Fundamental changes to the Constitution were necessary to entrench in our national charter the principle that “a true republic rests on the absolute equality of rights of the whole people, high and low, rich and poor, white and black.”
One of the 14thAmendment’s most important innovations was to place on states an affirmative constitutional duty to protect the legal rights of the entire populace, rich and poor alike. “American citizenship would be little worth it if it did not carry protection with it,” argued Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull. The equal protection clause wrote the right to legal protection, independent of wealth, into the Constitution. Rather than acting to keep the poorest of Americans marginalized, states now had a constitutional obligation to act affirmatively to protect their enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.
AdvertisementThe debates over the 14thAmendment repeatedly affirm economic equality as a fundamental constitutional ideal. Rich and poor alike were entitled to equal citizenship, equal rights, and equal protection. Introducing the 14thAmendment, Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard explained that it “gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and same protection under the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty.” Illinois Rep. Jehu Baker argued that it was a “disgrace to a free country that the poor and the weak members of society should be denied equal justice and equal protection at the hands of the law.”
Advertisement AdvertisementSimilar affirmations of economic equality pervaded speeches urging ratification. On the campaign trail, Ohio Rep. John Bingham described the equal protection guarantee as a “sublime example of a great and powerful people” providing that “the humblest human being anywhere shall have the same protection under the law as the President himself.” It meant that “Lazarus in his rags shall be as sacred before the majesty of American law as the rich man clothed in purple and fine linen.”
AdvertisementThe Reconstruction Framers not only fundamentally altered the Constitution; they also created the nation’s first federal social welfare agency—the Freedmen’s Bureau—to provide access to food, medical care, and education to Black Americans freed from enslavement and refugees whose lives had been uprooted by wartime devastation. Aiming to ensure some measure of economic security and access to education, the legislation recognized the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to make equal citizenship a reality. “The obligation to take care of them,” Trumbull insisted, “is a constitutional obligation imposed on us as a government.”
The Freedmen’s Bureau legislation provides crucial insight into what protection meant to those who wrote the 14thAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Freedmen’s Bureau Act “cast the shield of protection over four million American citizens” at a time when white-dominated Southern governments refused to spend a penny on poor Black Americans yearning for meaningful freedom. To redeem the promise of abolition, Congress acted to alleviate poverty, help newly freed individuals become self-supporting citizens, and ensure access to education. Equal protection entailed the provision of basic goods and services to make freedom real.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThis aspect of the 14thAmendment’s text and history has never received its due. To the contrary, conservative Supreme Court justices have repeatedly given a crabbed interpretation of the 14thAmendment and read poor Americans out of its universal promises.
AdvertisementIn 1970, in Dandridge v. Williams, the court announced that inequalities in the administration of state-run programs are “not the business of this Court” even when “the most basic needs of impoverished human beings” are at stake. In 1973, in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, the court sanctioned school financing arrangements that denied equal educational opportunities to children from poorer neighborhoods. In 1980 Harris v. McRaeupheld the exclusion of abortion from Medicaid’s coverage of medically necessary health care and sanctioned the power of the government to harm poor women—disproportionately women of color—simply because of their poverty.
AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Mark Joseph Stern
The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Took Direct Aim at Jack Smith’s Trump Indictment. Will They Go Through With It?
Read MorePopular in News & Politics
- The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
- You Don’t Want to Know How It’s Going Between Trump’s Lawyers and the Judge Presiding Over His Criminal Case
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
This term, with the Grants Passcase, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to take at least a small step in the right direction away from the court’s disappointing legacy—and more recent history—on economic justice issues.
In 2013 the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, adopted a series of ordinances that criminalize sleeping anywhere in public with as little as a blanket. Rather than protect its most marginalized inhabitants, the city sought to use the power of criminal law to banish its homeless residents.
AdvertisementThe case, which asks the court to decide whether the ordinances violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, raises the fundamental question of whether homeless persons will be treated as equal citizens entitled to protection or punished as criminals simply because they lack a shelter over their heads. The import of the 14thAmendment’s text and history should be plain: Criminalizing poverty violates the Constitution.
Grants Pass insists that how it treats its poorest residents is purely a question of policy. As a matter of text and history, this is flatly wrong. The 14thAmendment centers the rights of poor people. Recognizing this fundamental truth is long overdue.
Tweet Share Share CommentTags:
相关文章
创新扶贫产品销售体系 积极促进全市消费扶贫
关于我们雅安日报/北纬网讯昨16)日,我市创新扶贫产品销售体系促进精准脱贫暨首届“扶贫帮”大型扶贫公益产品展销活动落下帷幕。此次活动从12日持续到16日,共有来自我市各县区的90余家参展商参展。同时,通过购买 ...
【关于我们】
阅读更多China reiterates stance on internet regulation to Google and Facebook
关于我们China has more than 700 hundred million internet users, but if tech companies want a slice of the ac ...
【关于我们】
阅读更多NK paper highlights fertilizer plant construction after Kim's attendance at completion event
关于我们(KCTV-Yonhap)North Korea's official newspaper on Monday highlighted the construction of a fertilizer ...
【关于我们】
阅读更多
热门文章
- FBI warns of look
- NK paper highlights fertilizer plant construction after Kim's attendance at completion event
- Russia used N. Korean missiles for Ukraine attacks: US
- Emotional Evra slams Man United after Spurs defeat
- Six star players to watch at Qatar World Cup
- RIP Scott Disick and Bella Thorne's true love, May 2017
最新文章
友情链接
- Family of slain public official seeks help from UN, US politicians
- North Korea ups tension with ballistic missile launches
- These are all the Echo speakers Amazon showed off at its big event
- New cases exceed 2,000 for 2nd day amid worries over further upticks
- We need to talk about public EV charging etiquette
- Surreal memes deserve their own internet dimension
- John McCain ends medical treatment for brain cancer, said to be near death.
- North Korea could be delaying nuclear test because of China, COVID
- Cookie Monster held an AMA on Reddit, and it's so pure you may cry
- The coronavirus could be here to stay. Your privacy may be another victim.