No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Help us spread knowledge worldwide. Donate to Wikimedia!
"It's not much, but I imagine it probably covers my personal pageviews!" — Anonymous
Video
[Hide this message]
[Show more]
Privileges or Immunities Clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is about the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the related clause in Article Four, see Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Privileges or Immunities Clause. It states:
“ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ”
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Drafting and adoption
* 2 Interpretation
* 3 Redundancy issues
* 4 Right to travel
* 5 References
* 6 External links

[edit] Drafting and adoption

The primary author of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Bingham's main inspiration was the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the original unamended Constitution, which provided: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

On February 3 of 1866, a congressional committee known as the "Joint Committee of Fifteen" voted in favor of a draft constitutional amendment proposed by Bingham.[1] The draft constitutional amendment provided:
“ The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.... ”

This language closely tracked the existing language in the Privileges and Immunities Clause. On February 28 of 1866, Bingham expressed his opinion that this draft language would give Congress power to "secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States," and he added that "those immunities follow under the Constitution."[2]

Subsequently, on April 28 of 1866, the Joint Committee of Fifteen voted in favor of a second draft proposed by Congressman Bingham, which would ultimately be adopted into the Constitution. The Joint Committee no longer tracked the existing language in Article Four as the Committee had previously done, and instead the second draft used the language ("immunities of citizens of the United States") that Bingham had employed to express his opinion about Article Four. On May 10 of 1866, in the closing debate on the House floor, Bingham explained:
“ [M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.[3] ”

The Fourteenth Amendment was approved by the House later that day. The Senate subsequently added a sentence granting birthright citizenship on June 8, 1866. Congress then gave final approval to the Privileges or Immunities Clause when the House proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the states for ratification on June 13 of 1866. It became part of the Constitution in July of 1868.

[edit] Interpretation

This provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was almost read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873.[4] The Clause has remained virtually 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, while also incorporating other constitutional rights against the state governments (e.g. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus). However, that incorporation has instead been achieved mostly by means of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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 a 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, nor any other right that followed under the Constitution.

In obiter dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughterhouse went so far as to acknowledge that the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States include at least some rights listed in the first eight amendments: "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances ... are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution."

Legal scholars disagree about the precise meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, although there are some aspects that are less controversial than others. William Van Alstyne has characterized the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause this way: [5]
“ Each [citizen] was given the same constitutional immunity from abridging acts of state government as each was already recognized to possess from abridgment by Congress. What was previously forbidden only to Congress to do was, by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, made equally forbidden to any state. ”

If a citizen of Washington D.C. has a particular constitutional immunity, then, according to Van Alstyne, the Fourteenth Amendment extends that immunity to all citizens of all the states.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has said that the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment depends upon the meaning of its counterpart in Article IV: the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Pilon further urges that the Article IV Clause should be reinterpreted as protecting a wide variety of natural rights, despite "its more recent history of interpretation or enforcement." [6]

Like Roger Pilon, some of the framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause anticipated that it could protect (from state infringement) a broad range of rights far exceeding what had been enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, as Pilon notes, that was often because of their interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the original unamended Constitution. Regarding that interpretation of the older clause, Justice Clarence Thomas has noted that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment realized the Supreme Court had not yet "undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities" in the original unamended Constitution.[7] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment left that matter of interpretation in the hands of the judiciary.

In the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers intended the Privileges or Immunities Clause to apply the Bill of Rights against the states. Black argued that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from John Bingham's congressional statements.[8] However, Black's position on the Privileges or Immunities Clause fell one vote short of a majority, in the Adamson case.

[edit] Redundancy issues

One of the arguments against interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a requirement that the states comply with the Bill of Rights has been that such an interpretation would render the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment redundant, due to the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Although constitutional scholars such as Raoul Berger have raised this question, an answer has been detailed by Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar. According to Amar, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to extend the due process right not only to citizens, but to all other persons as well, which required a separate Due Process Clause.[9] Although the Fifth Amendment refers to "persons" and not "citizens" within its text, it would only be incorporated by the Privileges or Immunities Clause as to citizens.

A similar redundancy issue is posed by an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause that views it as simply a guarantee of equality. Proponents of that interpretation acknowledge that, "The natural response to this approach is to say that ... any equality-based reading of the clause is redundant because the Equal Protection Clause provides the necessary ground and more."[10]

[edit] Right to travel

In the 1999 case of Saenz v. Roe,[7] Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, said that the "right to travel" has several components, including a component protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Stevens explained:
“ Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." ”

Actually, Justice Miller had written in the Slaughter-House Cases that one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States "is conferred by the very article under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." Justice Miller was relying here upon an article (i.e. the Fourteenth Amendment) rather than merely the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause addresses residency: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Justice Stevens quoted this Clause in Saenz, and acknowledged that it protects a right to resettle. Therefore it is unclear how (and whether) the Privileges or Immunities Clause affected the outcome of Saenz.

[edit] References

1. ^ Curtis, Michael. No State Shall Abridge: the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (Duke University Press 1986).
2. ^ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1095 (1866).
3. ^ Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866), quoted in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 92-118 (1947)
4. ^ In Re Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
5. ^ Van Alstyne, William. The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L.J. 1236-1255 (1994)
6. ^ Shankman, Kimberly and Pilon, Roger. Reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause to Redress the Balance Among States, Individuals, and the Federal Government Cato Policy Analysis No. 326 (1998)
7. ^ a b Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). Several analyses of the Privileges or Immunities Clause were noted by Justice Thomas in the Saenz case, including these:
* Currie, David. The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341-351 (1985) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision)
* Crosskey, William. Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States, Volume 2, pp. 1089-1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights)
* Siegan, Bernard. Supreme Court's Constitution 46-71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights)
* Ackerman, Bruce. Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale Law Journal 453, 521-536 (1989) (same)
* Berger, Raoul. Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866)
* Bork, Robert. The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot)
8. ^ Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 92-118 (1947)
9. ^ Amar, Akhil. The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale Law Journal 1193, 1224-1225 (1992).
10. ^ Harrison, John. Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale Law Journal 1385, 1418 (1992).

[edit] External links

* Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1866.


[hide]
v • d • e
United States Constitution
Text (at Wikisource): Preamble and Articles · Bill of Rights · Subsequent Amendments
Formation History · Articles of Confederation · Mount Vernon Conference · Annapolis Convention · Philadelphia Convention · New Jersey Plan · Virginia Plan · Connecticut Compromise · Three-fifths compromise · Signatories · Massachusetts Compromise · Federalist Papers (list)
Amendments Bill of Rights · Ratified · Proposed · Unsuccessful · Conventions to propose · State ratifying conventions
Clauses Appointments · Appropriations · Case or controversy · Citizenship · Commerce · Compact · Confrontation · Contract · Copyright and Patent · Due Process · Emolument · Equal Protection · Establishment · Exceptions · Ex post facto · Extradition · Free Exercise · Fugitive Slave · Full Faith and Credit · Guarantee · Impeachment · Militia · Natural–born citizen · Necessary and Proper · No Religious Test · Origination · Presentment · Privileges and Immunities (Art. IV) · Privileges or Immunities (14th Amend.) · Speech or Debate · Supremacy · Suspension · Takings Clause · Taxing and Spending · Territorial · Trial by Jury · Three-fifths · Vesting · War Powers
Interpretation Theory · Congressional enforcement · Double jeopardy · Dormant Commerce Clause · Enumerated powers · Executive privilege · Incorporation of the Bill of Rights · Nondelegation · Preamble · Preemption · Separation of church and state · Separation of powers
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause"

Categories: United States Constitution | United States law
Views

* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools




Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified 04:53, 30 July 2007.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
* Privacy policy
* About Wikipedia
* Disclaimers