Jump to content

Sashe na Kariya Daidaitawa

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.

 

Sashe na Kariya Daidaitawa
clause of the United States Constitution (en) Fassara
Bayanai
Bangare na Kwaskwarima ta goma sha huɗu ga Tsarin Mulki na Amurka

Batun Kariya Daidaito wani bangare ne na sashe na farko na Kwaskwarimar Kwaskwarima na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka . Sashen, wanda ya fara aiki a cikin 1868, yana ba da “ko wata Jiha ... hana wa duk wani mutum da ke cikin ikonsa kariya daidai da doka." Ya ba da umarnin a yi wa daidaikun mutane a cikin irin wannan yanayi daidai da doka. [1] [2]

Babban dalili na wannan sashe shine tabbatar da tanadin daidaiton da ke cikin Dokar 'Yancin Bil'adama ta 1866, wanda ya ba da tabbacin cewa duk 'yan ƙasa za su sami 'yancin samun kariya daidai da doka. Gabaɗaya, Kwaskwarima na Goma sha huɗu ya nuna babban canji a tsarin tsarin mulkin Amurka, ta hanyar amfani da ƙarin hani na tsarin mulki a kan jihohi fiye da yadda aka yi amfani da su kafin yakin basasa .

Ma'anar Jigon Kariya Daidaita ya kasance batun muhawara mai yawa, kuma ya zaburar da sanannen kalmar " Mai Daidaita Adalci Karkashin Doka ". Wannan sashe shine tushen Brown v. Board of Education (1954), hukuncin Kotun Koli wanda ya taimaka wajen wargaza wariyar launin fata . Maganar kuma ta kasance tushen Obergefell v. Hodges , wanda ya halatta auren jinsi, tare da wasu yanke shawara masu yawa na ƙin nuna wariya, da kuma girman kai ga mutanen da ke cikin kungiyoyi daban-daban.

Yayin da Tsarin Kariya Daidaita kanta ya shafi jihohi da ƙananan hukumomi ne kawai, Kotun Koli ta gudanar a Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) cewa Tsarin Tsari na Kwaskwarima na biyar duk da haka yana buƙatar daidaitaccen kariya a ƙarƙashin dokokin gwamnatin tarayya ta hanyar haɗawa da baya .

Maganar Kariya Daidaita tana nan a ƙarshen Sashe na 1 na Kwaskwarimar Kwaskwarima ta Goma sha huɗu: "Babu wata ƙasa da za... ta hana kowane mutum da ke cikin ikonta daidaiton kariyar dokoki." [3]

Dan majalisa John Bingham na Ohio shine babban mai tsara Jigon Kariya Daidai.

Ko da yake daidaito a ƙarƙashin doka al'adar doka ce ta Amurka wacce za a iya jayayya da ita dangane da Sanarwar 'Yancin kai, [4] daidaiton al'ada ga ƙungiyoyi da yawa ya kasance mai wuya. Kafin zartar da gyare-gyaren gyare-gyare, wanda ya haɗa da Dokokin Kariya Daidaita, Dokar Amurka ba ta ba da haƙƙin tsarin mulki ga baƙar fata Amirkawa ba. Baƙar fata an ɗauke su ƙasa da farar Amurkawa, kuma suna ƙarƙashin bautar chattel a cikin jahohin bayi har sai an fitar da sanarwar 'Yanci da tabbatar da Kwaskwarima na Goma Sha Uku.

Hatta baƙar fata Amirkawa waɗanda ba a bautar da su ba sun rasa mahimman kariyar doka. A cikin 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford yanke shawara, Kotun Koli ta yi watsi da abolitionism kuma ta yanke shawarar baƙar fata, ko 'yantacce ko a cikin bauta, ba su da haƙƙin doka a ƙarƙashin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka a lokacin. [5] A halin yanzu, yawancin masana tarihi sun yi imanin cewa wannan yanke shawara na shari'a ya sanya Amurka a kan hanyar zuwa yakin basasa, wanda ya haifar da amincewa da gyare-gyaren sake ginawa. [6] 

Gilded Age fassarar da shawarar Plessy

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

A cikin Amurka, 1877 alama ce ta ƙarshen Sake Ginawa da farkon Zaman Gindi . Hukuncin kariyar gaskiya ta farko ta Kotun Koli ita ce Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). Wani bakar fata da wasu alkalai farar fata suka samu da laifin kisan kai ya kalubalanci wata doka ta West Virginia da ta kebe baki daga yin aiki a alkalai. Ficewar baƙar fata daga alkalai, Kotun ta ƙara da cewa, kin ba da kariya daidai wa daida ga baƙaƙen da ake tuhuma, tunda an zana alkalan daga cikin kwamitin da Gwamnati ta fitar da kowane mutum daga cikin jinsin [wanda ake tuhuma]." A lokaci guda kuma, Kotun ta ba da izini a fili game da jima'i da sauran nau'o'in wariyar launin fata, yana mai cewa jihohi "na iya iyakance zaɓi ga maza, ga masu kyauta, ga 'yan ƙasa, ga mutane a cikin wasu shekaru, ko kuma mutanen da ke da cancantar ilimi. Ba mu yi imani da Kwaskwarima na goma sha huɗu an taba nufin ya haramta wannan ba .... Manufarta ta kasance da nuna bambanci saboda launin fata ko launi."

Kotun da ta yanke hukunci Plessy

Muhimmin shari'ar bayan yaƙi na gaba shine shari'o'in 'Yancin Bil'adama (1883), wanda kundin tsarin mulki na Dokar 'Yancin Bil'adama ta 1875 ta kasance. Dokar ta tanadi cewa kowa ya kamata ya sami "cikakkiyar jin daɗin ... masauki, jigilar jama'a a kan ƙasa ko ruwa, gidajen wasan kwaikwayo, da sauran wuraren nishaɗin jama'a." A cikin ra'ayi, Kotun ta bayyana abin da tun daga lokacin ya zama sananne a matsayin " koyaswar aikin jiha ", bisa ga abin da garantin Tsarin Kariya Daidaita ya shafi ayyukan da aka yi ko kuma akasin haka "tabbace ta wata hanya" ta jihar. Hana baƙar fata halartar wasannin kwaikwayo ko zama a masaukin "laifi ne kawai na sirri". Mai shari’a John Marshall Harlan ya nuna rashin amincewarsa shi kadai, yana mai cewa, “Ba zan iya yin tsayayya da matakin cewa an sadaukar da zahiri da ruhin gyare-gyaren Kundin Tsarin Mulki na baya-bayan nan ta hanyar sukar magana mai dabara da dabara.” Harlan ya ci gaba da jayayya cewa saboda (1) "kayan aikin jama'a a kan kasa da ruwa" suna amfani da manyan tituna na jama'a, kuma (2) masu masaukin baki suna aiki a cikin abin da ke "aiki na musamman na jama'a", da (3) "wuraren shakatawa na jama'a" suna da lasisi a ƙarƙashin dokokin jihohi, ban da baƙar fata daga yin amfani da waɗannan ayyuka aiki ne da gwamnati ta amince da shi.

Hakkokin zabe

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]
Mai shari'a John Marshall Harlan II ya nemi fassara Ma'anar Kariya Daidaita a cikin mahallin Sashe na 2 na wannan gyara.

Kotun Koli ta yanke hukunci a Nixon v. Herndon (1927) cewa Kwaskwarima na Goma Sha Hudu ya haramta musun ƙuri'a bisa kabilanci. Aikace-aikacen farko na zamani na Dokar Kariya Daidaita zuwa dokar zabe ya zo a cikin Baker v. Carr (1962), inda Kotun ta yanke hukuncin cewa gundumomin da suka aika wakilai zuwa majalisar dokokin jihar Tennessee sun kasance marasa kyau (tare da wasu 'yan majalisa da ke wakiltar sau goma yawan mazauna kamar sauran) cewa sun keta Dokar Kariya Daidaita.

  1. "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from the original on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. The basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.
  2. "Equal Protection". Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
  3. "Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights: Interpreting the Equal Protection Clause". Supreme Court Historical Society.
  4. Antieau, Chester James (1952). "Equal Protection outside the Clause". California Law Review. 40 (3): 362–377. doi:10.2307/3477928. JSTOR 3477928. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  5. "Dred Scott, 150 Years Ago". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (55): 19. 2007. JSTOR 25073625.
  6. Swisher, Carl Brent (1957). "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After". The Journal of Politics. 19 (2): 167–183. doi:10.2307/2127194. JSTOR 2127194. S2CID 154345582.