The Slaughterhouse Cases: 136 Years of Unconstitutional Precedent

On this day in 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its disastrous and far-reaching decision in The Slaughterhouse Cases, effectively gutting the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, which reads: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The clause's purpose was to protect both natural rights (immunities) and civil rights (privileges) from abusive state governments. Slaughterhouse made a mockery of that.

At issue was a Louisiana law granting a 25-year monopoly to the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company to build and operate a new central slaughterhouse to "promote the health of the City of New Orleans." Writing for the Court's 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Miller held that not only was the monopoly constitutional, the Privileges or Immunities Clause actually protected only a modest set of national rights, thus leaving the states free to restrict liberty as they saw fit.

The case remains one of the Court's worst decisions, though recent developments suggest that the Slaughterhouse era may finally come to an end. Most significantly, after last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court will eventually face the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies against state and local governments as well.

To that end, the Institute for Justice recently filed a friend of the court brief (PDF) in the Chicago gun case, providing detailed historical evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause "protects substantive rights from incursion by state and local governments, and [that] the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense is among the most important of those rights."

When the Supreme Court finally decides the issue of the 2nd Amendment and the states, Slaughterhouse will hopefully receive some long-overdue scrutiny as well.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MNG||

    I might be wrong, but iirc Mr. Root, whose work is always thought provoking and well done, was critical of a anti-gun control brief from a liberal group based on the same clause of the 14th.

    I'm very sympathetic to the goals of a broad reading of this clause, or for that matter a broad reading of the Due Process clause to reach similar conclusions, but I worry that one man's "natural right" is just not another man's natural rights. How do we decide what "natural rights" are covered and which are not? The right to travel from state to state? Freedom of contract? Sodomy and other sexual relations? I don't think it's going to be clear to a lot of folks...

    Best to defend gun rights, for example, on the 2nd Amendment which seems to refer to it explicitly. I'd like it if the Constitution had some way of letting us know that the right to abortion or sodomy is covered, and I'm sure many libertarians here would like to see freedom of contract and such to be covered, but as an explicit matter, it simply wasn't. It strikes me our Founders were not very good liberals, conservatives or libertarians for that matter...

  • ||

    Curious to see if the Justices split this 5-4 based on their own biases, or if they go 9-0 since they should look at Heller as a precedent. I'm guessing 5-4 because they suck that much.

  • JP||

    Yes, the Slaughterhouse Cases decision was really bad. Among other things, it was a blatant example of "the Constitution may seem to say X, sonny, but what it really means is not-X."

    However, the Court has been applying parts of the Bill of Rights to action by the states for 50-plus years, without implicating Slaughterhouse. They can do it with the Second Amendment just as they did with most of the others.

  • ||

    MNG, let me refer you to the 9th Amendment.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Tell me again how they weren't libertarian.

  • MNG||

    "shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

    "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

    "To establish post offices and post roads;"

    "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

    "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."


    It's hard to buy that the folks that wrote all of the above were libertarians, that's for sure...

    "

  • ||

    MNG,

    I suppose that's true if you define libertarians as anarchists, but most of us favor strongly limited government, not no government. I'd be mostly satisfied with a constitutional government.

  • ||

    MNG, how are any of those non-libertarian?

  • MNG||

    The 9th is such a problemattic provision, as far as applying it.

    "The fact that we listed some rights the people have that doesn't warrant one to construe that listing to deny other rights the people have."

    They really left us hanging there. What were those other rights? How can we know?

  • MNG||

    uhh, so the government is given a broad grant to "regulate" my trading with a businessperson of a foriegn nation.

    It is given a grant to take property, life and liberty as long as it follows due process.

    It is given the right to take private property and convert it to public use, as long as it pays for it.

    It shall have the power to take property from others by force (how libertarians often refer to taxation) and to spend it on things like post offices.

    That's hardly the Cato Insitute dudes.

  • Brett Stevens||

    People are in denial of this obvious fact:

    Being part of a civilization requires you to cooperate with others, usually through some central authority or power.

  • ||

    MNG,

    In fact, that's about precisely where Cato lives. You're reading some of those items a lot more broadly than they're written, too.

  • ||

    It shall have the power to take property from others by force (how libertarians often refer to taxation) and to spend it on things like post offices.



    As long as it benefits everyone equally, then most libertarians wouldn't have a problem with a small tax for these sorts of things. I think you're misinterpreting some libertarian points. We're not against taxes. We're against taking people's money simply to give it to someone else for no other reason than to be 'fair'.

  • MNG||

    Of course you could never, ever, "benefit everyone equally" from government expenditures. Never. When they take money from A, who works at home and B, who lives 50 miles from work, and use it to build a road it doesn't "benefit everyone equally."

    Pro L
    Cato is cool with the government deciding they could find a better use of someone's home for the "general good" and taking it even if the homeowner adamantly protests?

    And they are for the post office?

  • ||

    While I'm at it.

    It is given a grant to take property, life and liberty as long as it follows due process.



    Yep. If you can prove, through due process(court of law), that I have broken a law, and wish then to incarcerate me, good on ya. Due process will prove(or not) that a person has infringed upon the rights of another, and compensation is made as restitution.

    It is given the right to take private property and convert it to public use, as long as it pays for it.



    Yep. If you want my property for other uses, pay me so I can obtain and equivalent piece of property somewhere else. It's not like eminent domain cases that we're seeing today. Now, people are not being adequately compensated for their property. And if they refuse to leave, then the games begin in order to force them out without compensation.

  • MNG||

    Big strong guys like me don't benefit from the protection police provide as much weak lil' guys like SIV or TAO, but we all pay taxes for it.

    For example.

  • ||

    MNG, unless person A is COMPLETELY self sufficient and doesn't partake in ANY service/good that uses those roads, then you'd have a point. But I ask you to show me anyone that does that. And if you can, I'd be willing to bet they don't pay taxes anyway.

  • ||

    MNG,
    Big strong guys like me don't benefit from the protection police provide as much weak lil' guys like SIV or TAO, but we all pay taxes for it.

    Some is not the same as none.

  • MNG||

    That's a very narrow way to read that (the Due Process clause). It seems to implicate much more than criminal fines, but all kinds of regulatory "deprivations" as long as a neutral and basically fair process is followed.

  • MNG||

    As to the roads, it may benefit everyone some, but surely it benefits some (like the owner of a shipping company) a lot more than others...All government expenditures are like that.

  • ||

    It's typically understood that Due Process is meant as Due Process of Law. Not just any process.

  • MNG||

    Don't get me wrong, the Founders were certainly not liberals in the modern sense either!

    Nor conservatives for that matter.

  • MNG||

    Sure, but look at it this way: libertarian Founders would have said something more protective about freedom and property rights than "we can take both from ya as long as we follow laws established ahead of time and in a fair process."

    And I imagine they would have mentioned something about freedom to contract as well...

  • James Madison||

    I'd like it if the Constitution had some way of letting us know that the right to abortion or sodomy is covered

    Well your Mom didn't exercise her right to abortion but you are exercising your right to sodomy enough to make up for it!

  • MNG||

    Had they been liberals they would have made it much more clear that government was empowered to act in certain ways for "the common good." And were they conservatives they would have not put in the first or eighth amendment, that's for sure...

  • Rorie Mayne||

    Utter nonsense, the Founders were "conservatives" in the sense the entire revolution was based on enforcing the common law and the English Bill of Rights, against abuses by the British government that attempted to make innovations in the government -citizen relationship because they were in the backwater colonies. Just look at the English Bill of Rights or the entire argument against searches and seizures that blew up because of the writs of assistance act. The patriots have more in common with the tea-bagger logic than the progressive liberals or even the libertarians because both groups have too many a priori assumptions, while the baggers merely are saying "
    HEY! The Constitution don't allow that!" just like the patriots who said "Hey! As royal subjects you can't do that to us!"

  • ||

    MNG,
    Sure, but look at it this way: libertarian Founders would have said something more protective about freedom and property rights than "we can take both from ya as long as we follow laws established ahead of time and in a fair process.

    Why? That pretty much covers it. As long as they're following the laws, there shouldn't be a problem. And as long as those laws are Constitutional, there shouldn't really be an issue.

    Why overcomplicate the issue?

  • MNG||

    Because you can easily create some pretty unlibertarian regulatory and administrative laws that would, in their application, deprive folks of a great deal of property and liberty and make sure that they are made ahead of time, offer up a fair process (a hearing, a neutral decision-maker, etc), etc.

    I'd say a very small part of Due Process claims involve the federal criminal code...

  • ||

    Because you can easily create some pretty unlibertarian regulatory and administrative laws that would, in their application, deprive folks of a great deal of property and liberty and make sure that they are made ahead of time, offer up a fair process (a hearing, a neutral decision-maker, etc), etc.



    You could, but if you elect the right kinds of people, which is what the founders knew you had to do to protect the Republic(and repeatedly warned us about), you won't have to worry about it.

    And very few people in the position to create laws today are the right kinds of people.

  • MNG||

    For example, under the explicitly given power to "regulate commerce" between the states the federal government could regulate how many hours can be in a shift for a traveling salesman, even require a lisence to engage in such work (and if denied prevent by force the person from engaging in it) prohibit him from possessing and using certain substances while traveling for work purposes, etc. I cannot imagine many libertarians proposing that if they were making up the rules from scratch...

  • ||

    "And this is us at dinner right before we sent you to the slaughterhouse."

  • MNG||

    Well Silentz, it they elected the right kinds of people they wouldn't need any Constitution at all. Those kinds of people would do the right thing, being the kind of folks they are!

    Most libertarians seem to think that a sensible and just government must have restrictions in place on government intrusion into important areas, for them things like property, freedom to contract, etc., because the "wrong kind of people" will always have a chance of getting elected.

    But our Founder's left out a lot of that stuff. I submit it's because they simply were not libertarians (not to say they were not "more" libertarian than most of our contemporary politicians, which I would say is obviously true).

  • MNG||

    The case in point is a good example: if they (Founders) had written "freedom of contract and freedom to pursue an occupation uharmful to others shall not be infringed" then it would have been very difficult indeed for the courts to uphold the monopoly provision in question with anything passing for a straight face...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    For example, under the explicitly given power to "regulate commerce" between the states the federal government could regulate how many hours can be in a shift for a traveling salesman...

    This actually isn't, as Clarence Thomas recognizes, the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The expansive definition to which you are referring basically came from Wickard v. Fillburn, which anyone who is intellectually honest should hate, regardless of your political orientation.

    The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make sure the states didn't lay tariffs, duties or quotas on goods from other states.

    Granted, even the early 1800s recognized that Congress could regulate interstate travel, but that was controlling the navigable waterways (and now roadways), not the people on them to the level you're postulating.

    Anyway, I don't know what the uncalled for personal shot was all about, but that's your bag.

  • The Angry Optimist ||

    I should add that I don't know who is informing Mr. Root about the evolution of P&I, but the doctrine of "substantive due process" (an oxymoron, if you think about it) has pretty much taken the place of what the P&I clause should have done. I mean, even if SCOTUS restores P&I, the analysis for economic regulations ("rational basis") is probably going to be the same.

  • Alex H.||

    @James-
    I exercised your mom's right to sodomy!

  • robc||

    I'd like it if the Constitution had some way of letting us know that the right to abortion or sodomy is covered

    The 9th amendment made it clear that all rights are covered. Now, whether or not abortion or sodomy is a natural right is a different matter entirely. :)

  • robc||

    What were those other rights? How can we know?

    Who the fuck cares? The constitution limits the government to only those powers specifically limited, so we dont need to worry about them trampling on our unnamed rights.

    In one of his few decent moments, Hamilton got it right about the Bill of Rights, unnecessary and will be misread.

  • robc||

    MNG,

    Big tent libertarian. Many of the founders fit in it. Many dont. The constitution was a fucking compromise, not a work of one man. I think some of them were liberals and conservatives too.

  • robc||

    specifically listed, not limited.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    They really left us hanging there. What were those other rights? How can we know?

    and

    Most libertarians seem to think that a sensible and just government must have restrictions in place on government intrusion into important areas, for them things like property, freedom to contract, etc., because the "wrong kind of people" will always have a chance of getting elected.

    But our Founder's left out a lot of that stuff.


    Hence, the Ninth Amendment. Dude, are you *really* that dense? If the Constitution doesn't prevent it, you can do it. It's really not that hard (although in practice it seems to be impossible).

    .. Hobbit

  • Taktix®||

    I was always under the impression that the Commerce Clause was to mediate commerce disputes between state governments. Or, more specifically, to fix the problem stemming from the Articles of Confederation wherein states would refuse to accept each other's currency and trade disputed would need a higher authority to mediate.

    As I understand, the Com. Clause was not for individuals...

  • MNG||

    "The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make sure the states didn't lay tariffs, duties or quotas on goods from other states."

    I don't buy that, because of this part of Art. I: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Since they addressed that clearly it would be strange to see the much less clearly worded Commerce clause as doing the same thing.

    Whether the Founders expected it to be applied here or there, they seemed to think of it as a pretty broad power, hence the language. And as Marshall pointed out this kind of broad language evidenced a realization that such powers could be exercised along such broad countours by a future Congress in specific ways that the Founders may not have expected.

  • MNG||

    "Hence, the Ninth Amendment. Dude, are you *really* that dense? If the Constitution doesn't prevent it, you can do it."

    Dude, how in the world do you figure the language of the Ninth means that.

  • Taktix®||

    Damn you TAO, I was running with my rare insightful torch, and you snatched that shit away from me...

    Bastard...

  • Taktix®||

    Whether the Founders expected it to be applied here or there, they seemed to think of it as a pretty broad power, hence the language.

    a) I find that language pretty narrow
    b) English circa 1800 is muy different than English circa 2000
    c) Very little in the Constitution is a "broad" power. It's a list of "Government can't..." not "People are allowed to..."

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    "The rights listed here are only an example; you have every right in the world that is not listed here."

    .. that's my take on the Ninth.. what's yours??

    .. Hobbit

  • MNG||

    My bad, of course that part I listed is a restriction Congress.

    Anyway, I still say the language suggests a pretty broad power: "to regulate commerce." That's pretty broad. You can argue that commerce had a more restricted meaning for the Founders and rightly point out the absurdly elastic concepts put forward at times (where domestic violence laws fall under the clause because battered spouses don't shop as much or something), but whatever it is the grant of power is simply "to regulate" whatever it is. Not much restrictions there I'm afraid.

    Remember that even in Gibbons v. Ogden the side calling for the more restricted view of the concept commerce said it applied to the buying and selling of goods interstate, which is a pretty broad range of behaviors, especially these days.

    Of course I agree with later findings that regulating interestate commerce can apply to the manufacture of the things to be commerced in, that just sounds logical (hardly far-fetched to think that the conditions under which the goods to be commerced are a pretty fundamental part of the action of "commerce', heck every good businessman thinks that way). But heck even I draw the line when the object of activity to be regulated is very indirectly related (violence against women means less women shopping and working, which effects the market for goods and labor, which effects the "commerce"....)

  • MNG||

    "that's my take on the Ninth.. what's yours??'

    My take is what it says. It says

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    It literally says "this listing of certain rights here shall not be used to deny that the people retain other rights."

    All it says is that there are rights retained by the people other than the ones listed. That hardly means you have a right to anything not listed, or you have any right not listed.

    And the messed up thing with it, is that it gives you little help in figuring out which rights not listed are the ones retained by the people.

  • The Angry Optimist ||

    Of course I agree with later findings that regulating interestate commerce can apply to the manufacture of the things to be commerced in

    That doesn't sound like "regulating interstate commerce" to me; that sounds like "regulating potential interstate commerce."

    That logic is the exact logic of Wickard v. Filburn, which was used extensively in Gonzales v. Raich.

    Commerce, historically, meant regulating "trade and exchange", not "any gainful employment". That's ACTUAL "trade and exchange", not POTENTIAL "trade and exchange".

  • The Angry Optimist ||

    But heck even I draw the line when the object of activity to be regulated is very indirectly related (violence against women means less women shopping and working, which effects the market for goods and labor, which effects the "commerce"....)

    MNG, just so you know, that's a very arbitrary line for you to draw. If I were to employ your beliefs about the Commerce Clause, you would say that Factory X can be regulated, because it makes things that will affect the stream of interstate commerce. Which means you can dictate the labor hours...which means you can dictate the safety regulations...and frankly, I don't know why you think all of those things are sufficiently connected and other things (like guns in schools or abused women) are too attenuated.

    I should mention that if you want to know my views on the Commerce Clause, I think that analysis under what is now called the "Dormant" Commerce Clause is much closer to what was intended than the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2005.

  • ||

    If unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited for ALL levels and branches of government, and if the right to refuse to testify against oneself, or to get a jury trial applies in ALL courts in the nation, then it would seem to me that the prohibition against infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms applies to all governments that are inferior to the Constitution -- and that means ALL of them.

    Why have reasonable people, including courts and legislatures, thought otherwise, and what justification(s) have they cited; how have they reconciled the obvious, inherent contradictions in such a position? Why do we NEED to have a court rule on this point now?

  • robc||

    The commerce clause seems easy to me:

    1. If I grow pot, that isnt interstate commerce, the feds cant regulate it. My state can, obviously.

    2. If I sell it to my neighbor, ditto.

    3. If I create a website and ship it around the US, they can regulate it.

    4. If I load it in a truck and ship it to an out-of-state Walmart, they can regulate it.

    5. Once Walmart puts it on their shelves and is selling to walk in customers, no regulation, its intrastate again now.

    See, easy.

  • robc||

    Oh, and #6:

    If I give my pot away to friends in other states, no federal regulation, as commerce isnt involved. Suck it.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    And the messed up thing with it, is that it gives you little help in figuring out which rights not listed are the ones retained by the people.


    .. all of 'em ..

    .. piece o' cake ..

    .. Hobbit

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    .. and let's not forget the Tenth (although Congress seems to have):

    .. "This is what the Federal Government can do. It cannot do anything except what is explicitly stated here."

    .. something which has been sadly neglected for the past 150 or so years ..

    .. Hobbit

  • Leonidas||

    I find it hard to believe that any Libertarian would defend something on the basis of the 14th Ammendment. Few laws have curtailed the liberties of Americans as much as this document did. While I do support many of the elements within the 14th, and can support arguments for those points, I cannot ever hold the 14th Ammendment up as something worthy of praise as it was one of the primary weapons used to tear down States' Rights by incorporating, for the first time ever, the Bill of Rights as written for the Federal government and applying it to the States. Those rights may well be worthy and if so should be written by the States into their own Constitution, but they should not be forced upon States from outside by a Federal Government seeking to expand its power, no matter how benevolent the intent.

  • MNG||

    "That doesn't sound like "regulating interstate commerce" to me; that sounds like "regulating potential interstate commerce.""

    That's just strange and goofy. If I am int he business of manufacturing widgets to be marketed and traded across the globe, then of course the first part of that process (the manufacturing of them) is part of that process. I mean, what then would commerce be, simply the point at which one article or service, being brought from one state, has money or something traded for it? Is only the handing of the money to complete the trade interstate commerce? Certainly the marketing of the goods interstate does, I should think the shipping of the goods does, but the manufacture of the goods does not? Now THAT'S a pretty arbitrary line to draw. Manufacture-shipping-marketing-trade: that all seems part of commerce. Again, every good businessperson knows this as common sense (they see it all as part of their "interstate enterprise).

    But what sane businessperson thinks the availability of guns in the areas he operates in, or the availibility of certain remedies for women that are victims of domestic violence, is part of their operations, though of course they may have some very attenuated "but for" effect on it?

    So it's pretty easy for me to reject some of the nuttier extensions of the clause while thinking it an easy, common sense question as to whether to grant the commerce clause the power to regulate manufacture that is intended or likely to go into the stream of interstate commerce (note, if it could be shown that the manufacture [or marketing, sales effort, actual exchange operations, etc.] was most certainly intended or likely NOT to go into that stream, but would, as with the wheat case, only have some attenuated but for effect, then I would find against the clause extending there)

  • MNG||

    Let's say I own a company that makes widgets. I live in Ohio. I buy ad time in West Virginia where I know many widget needing operations exist. I sent salespersons into that area to solicit orders. You, a business owner and Randian hero bravely producing value for the parasitic masses need widgets and after seeing my ads you call me and place an order for 1,000. I call the chief of the factory and tell him to hire on some extra labor and manufacture these widgets. When they are done I hire a crew to pack them and put them on trucks and I pay the drivers to drive them from Ohio to your place in West Virgnia.

    Certainly every step of this was a fundamental part of this instance of "interstate commerce" which Art. I gives the the federal Congress the broad grant or power simply "to regulate." Drawing lines here and saying the actions of the sales persons or marketing buys, the manufacturing, the shipping, are not part of the process is to draw strange distinctions with no pragmatic basis.

  • robc||

    MNG,

    The manufacturing part is not part of IC. The rest is. I might even argue the marketing isnt. The purpose of the IC was to deal with shipping and contracts across state lines, due to varying court systems. Both the manufacturing and the retail end (with internet/catalog exceptions) arent interstate.

    The reason things like manufacturing/retail/labor dont need to be a part of interstate commerce is that both ends of the transaction are in the same states and any disputes can be handled by state courts.

    If you think of the ICC being a tool to handle multijurisdiction disputes, then a much restriced version makes much more sense. "Regulation" in this sense is solely to grease the dispute process. Both sides understand the common set of regulations that apply.

  • anon.||

    @MNG

    "Drawing lines here and saying the actions of the sales persons or marketing buys, the manufacturing, the shipping, are not part of the process is to draw strange distinctions with no pragmatic basis."

    Even if we accept your premise, which of the following is more pragmatic:

    Drawing a line that, while somewhat arbitrary, ensures that government doesn't have unlimited power.

    Throwing up our hands because we can't achieve metaphysical perfection in our line-drawing, thereby allowing government to have unlimited power.

    If you call the latter pragmatism, I'd hate to see what your idealism looks like.

  • ||

    Here we have a pristine example of why the kind of judicial "activism" being applauded below to implement gay marriage is subject to the Fifth Iron Law:

    5. Any power used for you today will be used against you tomorrow.

    Ultra vires exercises of power by any government body are just that: exercises of power by an arm of the state. Why anyone would expect them to be, on net, a plus for liberty is beyond me. The genius of our system of divided government is in limiting the power of the respective branches, in recognition of the fact that state power, regardless of who wields it is, at the end of the day, hostile to liberty.

    Being part of a civilization requires you to cooperate with others, usually through some central authority or power.

    You realize, of course, that "cooperation" is by definition voluntary, and "central authority or power" is by definition coercive, yes?

    For example, under the explicitly given power to "regulate commerce" between the states the federal government could regulate how many hours can be in a shift for a traveling salesman, . . .

    That is almost certainly not what the Founders meant by "regulate commerce." What they had in mind was more in the nature of regulating the means of commerce, not the content of commerce. The latter is a blank check to control the economic life of the nation, as we have learned to our sorrow, which would have been anathema to the Founders.

  • Gosplan||

    "Yep. If you want my property for other uses, pay me so I can obtain and equivalent piece of property somewhere else."

    But what if there is no equivalent piece of property somewhere else?

  • ||

    The notion that the Supreme Court grievously erred in allowing Louisiana to move slaughter-houses out of residential neighborhoods in New Orleans has been repeated by many, with varying plans for the privileges or immunities clause. Last month another blogger expressed his hope that the Chicago gun cases eventually result in capital punishment being held to be a violation of the privileges or immunities clause. http://eightarticles.blogspot.com/2009/03/reviving-privileges-or-immunities_14.html His blog and this one remind me of the wisdom of the Slaughter-House Court's reluctance "to constitute [itself] a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States."

  • bubba||

    I guess I'll have to read up on the slaughterhouse case because it sounds like a utility as described.

  • Dan Goodman||

    To all,

        I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

        “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

    And:

        “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

    The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

        “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

    __________________


    FOOTNOTE:

        The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States
        http://www.australia.to/index......p;id=15882

    Also;

        A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)
        http://www.americanchronicle.c.....view/93081

  • Dan Goodman||

    To all,

    An update.

    There is now a website for those who wish to learn more about a citizen of the several states. The link:

    http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

    This site contains authoritative information on a citizen of the several States. For example; location in the Constitution, Article IV Section 2 Clause 1, Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 113 thru 114; privileges and immunities; Washington opinion Corfield v. Coryell, Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, at 15.

  • Dan Goodman||

    To all,

    An update.

    There is now a website for those who wish to learn more about a citizen of the several states. The link:

    http://citizenoftheseveralstat...../index.htm

    This site contains authoritative information on a citizen of the several States. For example; location in the Constitution, Article IV Section 2 Clause 1, Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 113 thru 114; privileges and immunities; Washington opinion Corfield v. Coryell, Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, at 15.

    (I see the link in my prior comment does not work, it should work now)

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • دردشة يمنية||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement