|
Text
| | No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States | | Image File history File links Cquote1. ...
Image File history File links Cquote2. ...
Interpretation of the Clause This provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was all but read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court (see Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873). The Clause has remained almost dormant since. The Privileges or Immunities Clause was perhaps originally intended to incorporate the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights against the state governments, but that has instead been achieved mostly by means of substantive due process and proceudral due process. Nevertheless, the Court in Slaughterhouse did not actually prevent application of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but rather addressed whether "the state monopoly statute violated 'the natural right of a person' to do business and engage in his trade or vocation." In other words, no provision of the Bill of Rights was at issue in that case. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ...
The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The United States Constitution is self-defined as the supreme law of the United States of America, along with laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties with foreign nations. ...
The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States...
Holding The 14th Amendment does not protect the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, only national citizenship. ...
1873 (MDCCCLXXIII) was a common year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar). ...
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ...
United States Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. ...
In United States law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. ...
Legal scholars disagree about the meaning of this clause. Some theories were noted in dissent in the 1999 case of Saenz v. Roe: Holding §11450. ...
- Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision)
- D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341-351 (1985) (same)
- 2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089-1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights)
- M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights)
- B. Siegan, Supreme Court's Constitution 46-71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights)
- Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521-536 (1989) (same)
- R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866)
- R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot)
It is perhaps the dispute over the Clause's meaning that has rendered it, for now, a trivial part of constitutional law. However, certain aspects of the Clause's meaning are very clear. The text of the Clause plainly indicates that it only restrains the states, rather than restraining the federal government. Moreover, the text of the Clause clearly says that the only restraints imposed upon the states are restraints that already operate to protect people as citizens of the nation, rather than imposing additional restraints. Because the courts have sought to impose additional restraints upon the states, beyond those enumerated in the Constitution as limits on the federal government, the Privileges or Immunities Clause may perhaps be an unwelcome reminder that the courts were intended to extend already-existing rights rather than create new ones.
External links |
Feeds |
Contact