From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individual Rights
Date: 12 Oct 1992 02:20:44 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) wrote:
>>>To take an example from American history, consider the time when blacks were
>>>slaves, and were treated as non-people.  The objective of accepting them fully
>>>into American society was acoomplished, not by inserting a clause into their
>>>constitution specifically granting blacks 'collective' rights of some sort.
>>>It was accomplished by actually following what their constitution already said
>>>(or even, implied).

I (mathew@unixg.ubc.ca; Mathew Englander) wrote:
>>You've got it exactly backwards. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
>>to the U.S. Constitution specifically entrench the rights of blacks.
>>Even with these amendments, blacks are far from "equal"; it's scary
>>to think what the U.S. would be like without the amendments.

robinc@bnr.ca (Frank) writes:
>>Please write out these amendments.

Here they are. As background, recall that the U.S. Civil War lasted 
from 1861 to 1865.

		AMENDMENT XIII [1865]
   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

		AMENDMENT XIV [1868]
   Section 1. 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.
   Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the
right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for 
President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives
in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the
members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens
of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation
in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein
shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such State.
   [Sections 3 and 4 omitted]
   Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
		
		AMENDMENT XV [1870]
   Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude--
   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.	

robinc@bnr.ca (Frank) writes:
>My first thought is that if "blacks" are specified to have equal rights
>in these amendments, then they are obviously redundant amendments.
>Other clauses state that all people have equal rights.

There is no clause in the U.S. constitution, other than s. 1 of the
14th Amendment (quoted above) that guarantees equal rights for all
people. Until 1868, the U.S. constitution did *not* guarantee equal
rights.

Even after 1868, it is clear that the "equal protection of the laws"
does not imply equal rights. For example, the 15th amendment, quoted
above, was required to give voting rights to adult black males. The 
19th amendment, ratified in 1920, was required to give women voting
rights. The 26th amendment, ratified in 1971, was required to give
voting rights to people aged 18 to 20.

>In what sense do "blacks" not have equal rights in the Constitution?
>In what sense are the amendments required to ensure equal rights for 
>different "races[A"?

In this sense: before 1865, the Constitution did not prevent whites from
*owning* black slaves. It was a constitutional amendment, not a re-
interpretation, that ended slavery. It was a constitutional amendment,
not a re-interpretation, that in 1868 provided blacks with "equal protec-
tion of the laws". And it was a constitutional amendment, not a re-
interpretation, that in 1870 gave black men the right to vote.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics