阅读36套E29的第4题~

watertcafeUID: 2999484

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, ratified in 1868, prohibits state governments
from denying citizens the "equal protection of the laws."
Although precisely what the framers of the amendment
meant by this equal protection clause remains unclear, all
interpreters agree that the framers' immediate objective was
to provide a constitutional warrant for the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, which guaranteed the citizenship of all persons
born in the United States and subject to United States
jurisdiction. This declaration, which was echoed in the text
of the Fourteenth Amendment, was designed primarily to
counter the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford
that Black people in the United States could be denied
citizenship. The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson,
who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished
slavery, did not provide Congress with the authority to extend
citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves.
Although Congress promptly overrode Johnson's veto,
supporters of the act sought to ensure its constitutional
foundations with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(172 words)

4.The author implies that the Fourteenth Amendment
might not have been enacted if
(A) Congress' authority with regard to legislating
civil rights had not been challenged
(B) the framers had anticipated the Supreme Court's
ruling in Brown v. Board of Education
(C) the framers had believed that it would be used in
deciding cases of discrimination involving
non-racial groups
(D) most state governments had been willing to
protect citizens' civil rights
(E) its essential elements had not been implicit in the
Thirteenth Amendment

答案A，求解析~因为文章中的意思好像是，总统反对act，而议会否决了总统的意见，而文中的Fourteenth Amendment是支持act的，这不就等于议会是支持act的吗？
可是题目的意思是，“下面哪种情况下Fourteenth Amendment不会实施”，答案A的意思是议会的权利不被挑战的时候。双重否定，也就是说议会的权利被挑战【即议会的决定：否决总统，被挑战，那么就是说不否决总统，支持总统反对Act】，那Fourteenth Amendment就会被实施。然而Fourteenth Amendment是支持Act的，这不就被反对了么T T求解答~~~

征夷大将军UID: 3048328

LS的定位已经比较清楚了，我也说说我对文章的理解吧：
这篇文章的确有点晦涩，如果粗略看一遍的话很难搞清楚逻辑关系，于是我是在看第二遍的时候弄懂的：

Fourteenth Amendment(简称14A)在1868年终于得到了认可，并且成为1866年的Civil Rights Act（简称CRA）的宪法依据。然后AJ总统就出来否决CRA，说13A只是废除奴隶制，并没有保障被解放的奴隶的公民权（由此句大概可以看出CRA和13A是同一个东西，可能CRA是13A里面的一个chapter）。然后议会就否决他的否决，但是supporter依然在寻找保障黑人的法律支撑，于是就有了14A。

看第二遍的时候终于有了那种melodrama的感觉：
议会是万恶的小集团、只维护上层阶级的利益，而总统以及其他supporter是正义使者。
议会制定13A就是为了打发日益高涨的黑人人权的呼声，也就是说13A并没有真正意义上保护人权，13A里面还包括了一个貌似很偏向于保护黑人，但实际上没有宪法依据的CRA，但是由于其并没有constitutional foundation,所以总统作为正义使者要去否决它，并认为13A没有真正保护人权；其他supporter也到处寻找支持的力量，于是议会最终妥协，1868年正式出台14A，并为CRA提供了宪法依据。

watertcafeUID: 2999484

！！！！！我懂得了！！！！！谢谢楼上二位！！！！

我是傻子！！= =有一个句子彻底理解错了。
【The act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson,
who argued that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished
slavery, [B]did not provide Congress with the authority to extend
citizenship and equal protection to the freed slaves.[/B]】
我把黑体字理解成了总统自己YY的观点= =也就是我觉得，总统同志不喜欢13号修正案，是因为13号修正案废除了奴隶制，而他认为这个东西不应该成为议会赐予所有公民平等的权利的依据……这样就感觉总统是个坏人！

要不要这么搓= =其实这段话就是13号修正案表里不一的体现，都是它本身的特点！
这样就很好理解了。总统的意思是，这个13号修正案表里不一，表面上废除了奴隶制，但却没有能够保障所有公民的平等权利，所以他否决这个修正案

而且，按照我的理解，文末那句话【Although。。。】，就是说，即使议会否决总统的否决——即议会支持这个act【=13号修正案】，但suppoters认为这样的保障还不够，还想要通过14号修正案来确立act的法律效应= =although应该理解成转折而不是让步……我傻掉了真的~

……………………………………谢谢LS二位………………