新GRE考試閱讀部分機經Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution， ratified in1868， prohibits state governments from denying citizens the equalprotection of the laws. Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by thisequal protection clause remains unclear， all interpretersagree that the framers immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for theCivil Rights Act of 1866， which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the UnitedStates and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration， which wasechoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment， was designedprimarily to counter the Supreme Courts ruling in DredScott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be deniedcitizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson， who arguedthat the Thirteenth Amendment， which abolished slavery， did not provideCongress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to thefreed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnsons veto， supportersof the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage ofthe Fourteenth Amendment.
第一段：14修正案禁止政府否認法律對公民的平等保護equal protection of the laws
雖然不太明白提案者這麼說的具體意義，但所有解釋都認同提案者的直接目的是為Civil Right Acts提供支持，這個Act的內容是保證所有出生於美國的並遵從美國法律的公民的市民權citizenship。14修正案重提Act的內容主要是為了反對最高法院Super Court的黑人應該沒有citizenship這一判決。Act被總統否定了，他認為13修正案中廢除了奴隸制，但沒有向國會提供將citizenship和equal protection擴展到黑人的權力authority。儘管國會又否決了總統的否定，Act的支持者們仍然去尋找Act的憲法基礎constitutional foundations，這樣就有了14修正案。
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that itsframers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list ofspecific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbidsorganized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for thefirst eight decades of the amendments existence， the SupremeCourts interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In theCivil Rights Cases of 1883， for example， the Court invented the state action limitation， whichasserts that private decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercialbusinesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from the reach of theFourteenth Amendments guarantee of equal protection under the law.
第二段：14修正案所用的broad language強烈地表明了提案者的目的並不是要提出誰的權力應該受保護的名單，而是要在憲法中建立這樣一個原則：任何一個個人都不應該被當做低等階層對待。但是14修正案提出後的80年間，最高法院對它的解釋違背了它的這個平等的想法。舉例：1883年的Civil Rights Cases中最高法院發明了state action這樣的一個限制，將public accommodations and other commercial businesses所有者的四人決定孤立於14修正案的法律平等保護之外。
After the Second World War， a judicial climatemore hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Courts ruling inBrown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated theequal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Twodoctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended theamendments reach. First， the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation thatemployed a suspect classification， meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could beconstrued as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the FourteenthAmendment to other， nonracial forms of discrimination， for while somejustices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race tobe constitutionally disfavored， most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracialdiscriminations， sexual discrimination in particular， are suspect and deservethis heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second， the Courtrelaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment， bringingnew forms of private conduct within the amendments reach.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution， ratified in1868， prohibits state governments from denying citizens the equalprotection of the laws. Although precisely what the framers of the amendment meant by thisequal protection clause remains unclear， all interpretersagree that the framers immediate objective was to provide a constitutional warrant for theCivil Rights Act of 1866， which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons born in the UnitedStates and subject to United States jurisdiction. This declaration， which wasechoed in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment， was designedprimarily to counter the Supreme Courts ruling in DredScott v. Sandford that Black people in the United States could be deniedcitizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson， who arguedthat the Thirteenth Amendment， which abolished slavery， did not provideCongress with the authority to extend citizenship and equal protection to thefreed slaves. Although Congress promptly overrode Johnsons veto， supportersof the act sought to ensure its constitutional foundations with the passage ofthe Fourteenth Amendment.
第一段：14修正案禁止政府否認法律對公民的平等保護equal protection of the laws
雖然不太明白提案者這麼說的具體意義，但所有解釋都認同提案者的直接目的是為Civil Right Acts提供支持，這個Act的內容是保證所有出生於美國的並遵從美國法律的公民的市民權citizenship。14修正案重提Act的內容主要是為了反對最高法院Super Court的黑人應該沒有citizenship這一判決。Act被總統否定了，他認為13修正案中廢除了奴隸制，但沒有向國會提供將citizenship和equal protection擴展到黑人的權力authority。儘管國會又否決了總統的否定，Act的支持者們仍然去尋找Act的憲法基礎constitutional foundations，這樣就有了14修正案。
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that itsframers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list ofspecific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbidsorganized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for thefirst eight decades of the amendments existence， the SupremeCourts interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In theCivil Rights Cases of 1883， for example， the Court invented the state action limitation， whichasserts that private decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercialbusinesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from the reach of theFourteenth Amendments guarantee of equal protection under the law.
第二段：14修正案所用的broad language強烈地表明了提案者的目的並不是要提出誰的權力應該受保護的名單，而是要在憲法中建立這樣一個原則：任何一個個人都不應該被當做低等階層對待。但是14修正案提出後的80年間，最高法院對它的解釋違背了它的這個平等的想法。舉例：1883年的Civil Rights Cases中最高法院發明了state action這樣的一個限制，將public accommodations and other commercial businesses所有者的四人決定孤立於14修正案的法律平等保護之外。
After the Second World War， a judicial climatemore hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Courts ruling inBrown v. Board of Education that racially segregated schools violated theequal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Twodoctrines embraced by the Supreme Court during this period extended theamendments reach. First， the Court required especially strict scrutiny of legislation thatemployed a suspect classification， meaning discrimination against a group on grounds that could beconstrued as racial. This doctrine has broadened the application of the FourteenthAmendment to other， nonracial forms of discrimination， for while somejustices have refused to find any legislative classification other than race tobe constitutionally disfavored， most have been receptive to arguments that at least some nonracialdiscriminations， sexual discrimination in particular， are suspect and deservethis heightened scrutiny by the courts. Second， the Courtrelaxed the state action limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment， bringingnew forms of private conduct within the amendments reach.
收藏