Two citizens now under the Constitution (Footnotes) by tret

VIEWS: 46 PAGES: 4

More Info
									Two citizens now under the Constitution

©2009 Dan Goodman

(since Slaughterhouse)

Footnotes

(Footnotes begin below.

Text is on a separate document)

Footnotes:
1. “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this 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.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 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 And, “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: „The citizens of each State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 (emphasis mine) the several States.‟ ” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, page 75.

2. "The Supreme Court, however, adopted a narrower view when it first interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases. These consolidated cases addressed several butchers' constitutional challenges under the Reconstruction Amendments to a Louisiana statute granting a monopoly on the butchering of animals in New Orleans to a single slaughtering company. Justice Miller, writing for the five Justices in the majority, rejected each of the butchers' constitutional claims, holding that the statute did not violate the guarantees of the Thirteenth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, (fn 86) Equal Protection Clause, or Due Process Clause, all of which he believed were concerned predominantly with the protection of the recently freed slaves. . . . -----------fn 86: Id. at 72-80 The Court divined a purported distinction in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment between the 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States' and those 'of citizens of the several states.' Id. at 74. The Court then expressed that the clause only protected 'the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' which it limited to

those owing 'there existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.' Id. at 79. . . ." Source: Rhodes, Charles W. (Rocky), "Liberty, Substantive Due Process, and Personal Jurisdiction", Tulane Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, 2007. This paper can be downloaded at the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1004112 . 3. As an example, there is the following:

“The following study was undertaken at the suggestion of Professor Westel W. Willoughby. So far as is known, no previous attempt has been made to treat the subject comprehensively, or to enumerate the rights which the citizens of the several States are entitled to enjoy free from discriminatory legislation, by virtue of the so-called Comity Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States).” The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship; Roger Howell; Published by the Johns Hopkins Press; 1918; 112 pages. http://books.google.com/books?id=qg9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA7,M1 4. This paragraph is quoted verbatim in Boyd v. State of Nebraska ex. Rel. Thayer, to wit: “In The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, it was held by this Court that the first clause of the Fourteenth Article was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the states, and it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.” Boyd v. State of Nebraska ex. Rel. Thayer: 143 U.S. 135, at 160 (1892).

5. “Where the headnote of a decision of a state court is not given special force by statute or rule of court, the opinion is to be looked to for original and authentic grounds of the decision.” Syllabus, Burbank v. Ernst: 232 U.S. 162, at 162-163 (1914). “. . . [T]he headnote is given no special force by statute or rule of court, as in some states. It inaccurately represents the reasoning of the judgment. In 129 La., it is said to have been made by the court. However that may be, we look to the opinion for the original and authentic statement of the grounds of decision.” Opinion, Burbank v. Ernst: 232 U.S. 162,

at 165 (1914).

6.

To this:

“Section 11079, Iowa Code 1927, also 1931, in effect since 1851, provides: „When a corporation, company, or individual has, for the transaction of any business, an office or agency in any county other than that in which the principal resides, service may be made on any agent or clerk employed in such office or agency, in all actions growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency.‟ . . . The cause is here by appeal. Appellant insists that, if construed as applicable to him, a citizen of another state never in Iowa, in the circumstances disclosed by the record, §11079 offends the Federal Constitution, §2, art. 4, and §1, Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the action of the trial court upon authority of Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co., 214 Iowa, 739, 241 N.W. 700, 701. The opinion in that cause construed §11079, and, among other things, said: „By its terms and under our holding, the statute is applicable to residents of “any other county” than that in which the principal resides, whether such county be situated in Iowa or in some other state. In other words, the statute does apply to nonresidents of Iowa who come within its terms and provisions, as well as to residents. Our construction of the statute has stood since 1887. . . . We adhere to our former holdings that the statute is applicable to individual nonresidents who come within its express terms and provisions. . . .‟ „The statute in question does not in any manner abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the several states. It treats residents of Iowa exactly as it treats residents of all other states. The citizens of each state of the United States are, under this statute, entitled to all the privileges and immunities accorded citizens of this state.‟ “ Henry L. Doherty & Company v. Goodman: 294 U.S. 623, at 626, 627 (1935). a


								
To top