|
MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67 (1976)
Now I know this is not necessarily a protection but I would say it is just as valid as your fish and game or welfare cases.
This by the way assumes I believe in a living breathing constitution which I do not. I am a strict constructionalist and at most an original intenter. If you start opening things to interpretation you end up with court cases such as Wickard v. Filburn which arguably has caused much of the Federal Governments over reaching policy. I would also argue the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson falls into this category.
If we were to use original intent on the 14th amendment a little historical perspective would be called for. The 14th amendment was drafted shortly after the civil war to try to make sure southern states couldn't find a back way into keeping slavery around. That is specifically why they use person instead of citizen in the amendment to try and protect slaves who were already born before the amendment was ratified or had been shipped over after they were born which would have nullified their rights. I would also contend this is why it did not limit the federal government because it was not foreseeable that at the federal level an attempt would be made to nullify these peoples rights during the remainder of their life times. However I would argue that it did not limit the federal government because it specifically wanted to maintain control over immigration. This is just my opinion but I believe with historical perspective it is hard to dispute that logic.
|