The  Myth of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

12 Pages Posted: 3 Mar 2025 Last revised: 3 Mar 2025

See all articles by Earl M. Maltz

Earl M. Maltz

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - Rutgers Law School

Date Written: February 28, 2025

Abstract

Although legal scholars who focus on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment disagree about many things, almost all agree that John Bingham proposed what was to become section one of the amendment in order to definitively establish the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In fact, however, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction chose to insert the Bingham formulation in place of a provision that would have explicitly constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act. This comment describes the circumstances that provided the backdrop for the consideration of the Bingham proposal and the implications that this context has for our understanding of the original meaning of section one.

Keywords: constitutional law, constitutional history, Fourteenth Amendment

Suggested Citation

Maltz, Earl Michael, The  Myth of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (February 28, 2025). Rutgers Law School Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5161298 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5161298

Earl Michael Maltz (Contact Author)

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - Rutgers Law School ( email )

Newark, NJ
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
49
Abstract Views
122
PlumX Metrics