View Single Post
Old April 22, 2013, 12:38 PM   #20
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
I disagree, there are not 2 P/I clauses
I believe there are: Firstly because of the Slaughterhouse Cases specifically basing their case on the 14th amendment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Justice Miller
The records show that the plaintiffs in error relied upon, and asserted throughout the entire course of the litigation in the State courts, that the grant of privileges in the charter of defendant, which they were contesting, was a violation of the most important provisions of the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The jurisdiction and the duty of this court [p59] to review the judgment of the State court on those questions is clear, and is imperative.
Secondly because of the results of those cases, that the 14th Amendment is worded differently, and had a different purpose built into the amendment. This was part and parcel of the rationale in the decision:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Justice Miller
The most cursory glance at these articles discloses a unity of purpose, when taken in connection with the history of the times, which cannot fail to have an important bearing on any question of doubt concerning their true meaning.
And described at even further length:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Justice Miller
But the war being over, those who had succeeded in reestablishing the authority of the Federal government were not content to permit this great act of emancipation to rest on the actual results of the contest or the proclamation of the Executive, both of which might have been questioned in after times, and they determined to place this main and most valuable result in the Constitution of the restored Union as one of its fundamental articles. Hence, the thirteenth article of amendment of that instrument. [p69] Its two short sections seem hardly to admit of construction, so vigorous is their expression and so appropriate to the purpose we have indicated.
And, on the 14th amendment specifically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Justice Miller
Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?
That we get this final interpretation of the amendment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Justice Miller
But when, as in the case before us, these consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; when the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when, in fact, it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people, the argument has a force that is irresistible in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.

We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.
Article 4, Section 2 is not tainted by this interpretation, and precedent. In fact, Article 4, Section 2 has precendent favoring the equal treatment of a non-state-resident US Citizen by a state, AS IF that citizen were a citizen of that state.
JimDandy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04760 seconds with 7 queries