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.
As I said, you are jumbling bits and parts. Interesting, this amendment was designed to nullify the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens and in response to the actions or readmitted Southern States after slavery was abolished. You will recall the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution and they believed only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those state.
Not sure what it has to do with your specific situation.
I have no situation just its boggled my brain for some time now, and i know about its ratification's. Just one last question... so an amendment can be abridged if members of congress find its justifiable by some sort such as a certain felony, or is it loop holes? Btw you're starting to be very helpful no ones been of any use to my questions.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof". See it and some of the powers anchored in it at http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/49-necessary-and-proper-clause.html
Thanks for shedding some light on that matter but that's even scarier!!
And the courts determine what is 'necessary and proper'
So what i get out of it is they can make a law as long as its with in the guidelines of the constitution but not abridging a constitutional right within reason and relevant to the context of an amendment. When they say execution i think they mean carrying out or putting into effect right?
you got it.