Kevin Gutzman: Freedom vs the Courts
24. Nov, 2009 
48 Comments
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Kevin Gutzman, best-selling author and expert on American Constitutional history, discusses the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine, how the doctrine has given us government by judiciary instead of government by representation, the Due Process clause, Substantive Protections vs. Due Procedure, the original intent of the 14th Amendment, how the courts changed that meaning over the ensuing five decades, the Bill of Rights as a limitation on the power of Congress, how the incorporation doctrine has turned the principles of federalism on its head, representative government vs. government by “experts,” Privileges or Immunities and The Slaughter-House Cases, rights of State citizenship, how James Madison warned that those in government would tend to use and expand power, some of the greatest violations of the Constitution under the doctrine of incorporation, why federalism and decentralization is a better system to secure liberty, and more.
Mentioned in this Show
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
Virginia’s American Revolution
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
This is a fantastic interview! Answered a lot of questions I just couldn't understand before.
I am a citizen of Texas. The Feds can go pound sand!
I don't get it – so if he feds come down on the states for violating my right to own a gun, who comes down on the feds for doing it, the UN? Why do people want this massive central state option? Do they trust federal politicians and judges more than state ones? I don't trust either.
The state is supposed to come down on the feds, if the feds VIOLATE your right to own a gun.
As for the state doing it, the state decides what right you have, other than the few privileges and immunities that Dr. Gutzman mentioned. Originally, the 9th Amendment only applied to state rights reserved against federal law– but now, it refers to Common Law rights against STATE law. It's completely messed up from the actual. For example, abortion was claimed under the Common Law rule that did not recognize life before birth– and the court held that Common Law superseded STATE law; therefore abortion was recognized under the general right of privacy, since life was not as a protected right recognized before birth.
Of course, this is 100% backward; the 9th Amendment simply means that state laws which existed before the Constitution, cannot be denied via federal laws written afterward; and these include the right to define when life begins. So the Civil War simply turned the Constitution on its head, making the federal government supreme, Common law secondary, and the state government and People are in last place.
Good points! My basic reservation is the following. Regarding the Civil War turning the Constitution on its head, I think that the real culprit is perversions of the 14th A. by corrupt justices.
For the record If the State violates yer rights or you dont like the rights the States grants/Denies you, you can at least leave, in addition to having a stronger vote to keep the state from doing that.
With the Federal Government you dont so much have that option, which is why having the federal Government protect anything beyond your basic right to leave the state is inherently dangerous, to such rights.
From all I've seen the question of basis of authority remains, as Allen Tran questions it.
Using the constitutional basis in conjunction with the bill of rights, in literal form is the only equitable way.
Power is only the smaller part of the reason of its present manner of use. It is the fact that our 'representatives' do not want to be held liable for their illegal actions in violation of these two documents.
The judiciary can be held just as liable and also refuse their responsibilities for the same reasons.
The best action would seem to be to legislate the matter into all state constitutions in such a manner as to disallow any actions contrary to these two basic documents in an all inclusive way.
Then you have a base guide for all the rest.
Problems of morality on any basis, would require definition rather than precedent, and offer the return to the power of these documents. All contraries would then be repealed and rescinded accordingly at all levels.
The 'chinks' in the armor are nothing more than misuse of authority never granted and a lack of definition.
Instead of service to entities, you then regain service to, by, and for the people.
Taxes started our first revolution and the people are beginning to see the same abuse once more.
The first bailout expended our countries liquidity. Add the so called health care and we are history. The continual war expense, as a service to other interests, just puts the icing on the cake, etc.
The so called 'entitlements' are not supposed to be, depending on who you listen to. They all are in the red because they were open to theft by our representatives/government and banking/financial system.
As an example, all the 'representatives' are to be 'paid' for passage of the health care reform.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
The bailout also offered some more time of freedom or martial law now.
The bio-weapon H1N1 is just one more in a long line of the things those behind the scenes offer through their corporate power.
Then there is a quote,'freedom comes from the barrel of a gun'…
I hope we all still have time to use what is left of our freedom to legislate. However, being organized, armed, and survival ready offers a very powerful stand against these people.
We are at the point of hoping for the best, but not expecting it, and being ready in either event.
We the people have a lot of hard and difficult work ahead of us in all these matters. Yet the glimmer of hope was seen when so many came out for those tea parties.
I suggest all those who attended, become as active as possible in order to rectify the damage already done.
How about Tenth Amendment, Constitution Party, and Tea Parties unite towards these goals?
An all inclusive coalition of all perspectives to revive our freedom through the constitution would work.
Just be aware that it may take a dictatorship in order to reset our ship of state.
Every time we let these DC politicians take a little extra power (and they often do while claiming it's for an "emergency" or another "good" reason), they'll only continue to expand it in the ensuing years to the point that they have all the power we never wanted them to have. It happens every time.
As George Washngton wrote, "government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is only force." Until power is returned to the People of the individual states, then the federal government and electorate, will continue to abuse their ill-gotten power for their own benefit. Tea-parties won't do it, unless they are backed by a REVOLUTION by which the People of the states take back their power by right– the power which the Founding Fathers won for them– AS INDIVIDUAL NATION-STATES, NOT a single nation– but which later charlatans took away under false pretense of single-nation authority in 1861.
Candidates like Ron Paul do NOT stand for this, but simply for reforming the corrupt– which is impossible; until power is re-gained by the People of the individual states, then it can only be abused by the federal government and electorate, causing more disaster.
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957
"A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the
Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is
responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the
ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of
America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three
fourths of the States of the Union as required by the
Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was
dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868.
The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the
Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary
to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution.
Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of
ratification."
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lawrence/no14th...
That was a good interview. We've touched on this before, but the real hang-up with the 14th and the arguments pro/con incorporation is the sentence in the 14th: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
I recall reading some articles to the effect that a proper construction of "privileges and immunities" did not extend to the rights protected in the B of R.
I can see that argument, but IMO, the 14th is a troublesome amendment because there is not much precedent to enable a person of ordinary sensibilities to agree that a state should have the right to politically suppress women's suffrage or their rights to contract, for example.
Gutzman does honestly admit that in a Republican form of government, as intended by the Constitution, these "rights" would not exist but for the benevolence of your particular local dictators.
It is a thought-provoking issue….
It's not the "local dictators" who are in power under the original republican constitution– but the PEOPLE of the states themselves, who have the power to override state OR federal government if they become destructive to basic rights.
And what makes "local dictators" so much more horrible than DISTANT ones in Washington? You're claiming that federal legislators, executives and judges are somehow less prone to corruption? Poppyseeds!
I would think the local governors an judges to be FAR more accountable, responsive and amenable to local concerns of their own state, than the pork-and-power mongers in their far-off "Ivory Towers" of the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court, where a state's concerns are simple theory and statistics to be managed like herds of cattle– i.e.of no concern, as long as it's not THEIIR ox being gored.
(cont''d)
You assume too much in what I said. You and I are actually in agreement on which dictator I'd prefer. Try not to take my acknowledgment of difficult issues as being a rejection of my preference of states over the feds.
I think any mindful person would have to agree that at least some good things have come from centralization. Nonetheless, we have those benefits now, and I think the time has come for D.C. to let go.
The American Civil War resulted from this effect, via majority-breaches of the Constitution in taxing minority-states for the benefit of the majority special-interests in power; and after that war, all hell broke loose in terms of the federal government being supreme dictator over ALL the states and the people.
Your Utopian dreams of infallible federal government, are just that– and they've become an unstoppable NIGHTMARE.
The problem with Dr. Gutzman's view, as with all liberterian critiques of federal breaches of the Constitution, is their general impotence in effecting remedy against the 900-lb. gorilla-government. Under the actual law, the People of the individual states, are the supreme ruling sovereigns of their own state– which is a sovereign nation unto itself, just like England or France. However Big Ape Lincoln changed all this and suppressed the truth through censorship– to the point where actual history has been suppressed for over 140 years, through indoctrinate dogma that he was preserving the Union and freeing the slaves. Poppyseeds! It was all about seizing POWER.
The only way to restore justice under the Constitution, is to restore power to the People of the individual states. I don't know why Dr. Gutzman's wants to dabble in details of the abuse, rather than adress this one fact regarding the power-dynamic relationship of the Constitution and state popular sovereignty; however in any event his approach is entirely futile, in that power will never be relinquished voluntarily by the government, if the People do not recognize and take it back by RIGHT.
I believe there were two incidents of potential state control during the formulation of the U.S. constitution that were unfortunately overlooked.
I believe that all congressional representatives should have been paid for and controlled by the state legislators as an employee of the state. Being able to get elected and then have no control except for the next election, with the option of approving their own pay check, is too much reliance on the moral quality of an elected bureaucrat.
The gold clause could have had much more control by a simple rewording: No state shall accept or make any thing but gold or silver coin as payment for debt or taxes. Perhaps a constitutional prohibitation of states to collect taxes in fiat currency might have perpetuated a longer Republic.
It already does: the Constitution clearly says that Congress has the power to COIN money– not to PRINT it.
Coins are fixed amounts of precious metals, and regulated value is only necessary in order to maintain consistency among fluctuating values for them (e.g. a sudden increase in the supply of silver would otherwise cause the inherent value of silver dollars to be worth less than gold dollars; however this would simply allow the government to coin MORE silver dollars, so it would balance out eventually). Hence, regulation of money-values was only intended to be a TEMPORARY power.
Fiat currency is flat-out UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Even though our focus is on state sovereignty and nullification, if somehow someone like Ron Paul or Andrew Napolitano is elected president in 2012, I am hoping that Dr. Gutzman will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
NO! The solution is sovereignty– not benevolent dictators!
What ideally needs to be done to restore state sovereignty is this, IMO. The ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments need to be repealed. This is because the 16th A. unthinkingly made it easy for the corrupt Congress to lay constitutionally unauthorized taxes on people, while state lawmakers stupidly destroyed their own representation in the federal Senate by ratifying the 17th A., allowing all voters to vote for senators.
However, a simpler way to “repeal” the 16th and 17th Amendments is to make pro-state sovereignty a campaign issue for 2010. In other words, pro-state sovereignty state and federal government leaders elected in 2010 can “repeal” these amendments by the way they vote on bills, much like the Democratic Congress is now “repealing” the rest of the Constitution by the way that they vote.
Finally, the following link should help give people an idea how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the 16th and 17th Amendments.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792
State sovereignty means STATE SOVEREIGNTY– i.e. that each state is a sovereign nation.
This has NOTHING to do with the Constitution or amendments, which are simply LAWS– and ALL laws are utterly subject to the final discretion of the sovereign.
Therefore unless this "sovereign" is the People of the individual state, then it defaults to state and federal GOVERNMENTS– i.e. Big Brother and BIGGER Brother.
And by law, the sovereign IS the People of the individual state.
These feds seem to be able to violate my state constitution with absolute impunity, and I for one am getting damn sick and tired of it.
Please review a *DRAFT* but nearly mature, PETITION FOR REDRESS OF FELONY GRIEVANCES PERPETRATED BY OFFICERS OF THE COURT having Draft PRESENTMENTS as obligated by VA18.2-482 and 18USC4 at http://members.cox.net/russell_p_davis/
If we are going to become a people after God's own heart and act as David with Goliath . . . . I sure wish I was a Marine. But I am not. I could use a little critique and moral support if you can spare some.
If I think of that petition as a pebble I think it needs more polishing before I should try giving it to Goliath.
I could sure use some help – I am apt to read my writing as I meant it not as I actually wrote it – Ouch. And you can bet that every small bit of gibberish left in that document will be pounced on like it was a fatal flaw.
And whenever perpetrated with the aid of post or wire constitutes http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u...
§ 18USC1341. Frauds and swindles such that almost every such felony can be brought within the jurisdiction of a Virginia Court by VA1-248
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c...
And given VA§ 19.2-191 “Functions of a grand jury”. . .”(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or official thereof. ”. . .” (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c... VA§ 19.2-200. “Duties of grand jury. The grand jury shall inquire of and present ALL felonies”. . .”committed within the jurisdiction of the respective courts wherein it is sworn”. . .”(http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c...
There is no surer way to restore the rule of our Constitutions and duly authorized law than to make it so in your county. One county that gets it right can heal their whole state and heal our whole nation. Local sheriffs and grand juries can compel their judges to obey their oath to support our constitutions or jail them with a lawful pro tempore judge and jury. Make your courts honorable so your victories and righteousness may not be stolen unless you allow it.
The American Grand Jury Movement is appropriate for taking the battle to those that conceit felony as their prerogative. But the AGJM needs a bit of help and work to make its remedies real. The AGJJM needs to work from states having laws like: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c...
VA18.2-481(5) Virginia Statutory Treason where resisting "the execution of the laws under the color of its authority" is the class II under which John Brown was hung.
and :
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c...
VA18.2-111 Virginia Statutory Embezzlement of the law were officers of the executive or judicial branch of Government (US of state) perpetrate “. If any person wrongfully and fraudulently use ” . . “ any ” . . “ bill, ” . . “order, ” . . “ or any other personal property, tangible or intangible, which he shall have received ” . . “ by virtue of his office, ” . . “ he shall be guilty of embezzlement. ” . . .”
when the property in question is the duly authorized public record of public law, and being non-real estate is therefore personal property, and applicable to EVERY officer of the court (member of the Bar) whose office is to administer the public records of duly authorize law to the people, such that those officers must be stewards and custodians of those records, else they could not perform their job, and whereby they receive those records in trust by virtue of their office.
We can take control of the House of Representatives to restore the 10th Amendment in the next election cycle. To see how, visit:
http://laboratoryofthestates.org/call_to_action_s...
I don't think control of the House is going to restore the 10th amendment anymore then it ever has in the past.
The problem is power corrupt, and federal politicians have too much to remain un-tempted and uncorrupted by that power.
If we are to restore the rights of the People and their States, we will require that the people and their States be the active agent of retaking those rights as to establish the vital president that will keep it that way.
Government must govern within the limits of the consent of the governed In a constitutional federal republic we deny that consent in more way the simply elections.
These rights/powers are not theirs to take from we the people and our States in the first place, to the same end, theses rights/powers is not theirs to re-grant to us by their vote either. Instead as they never had any right to take it they must not be permitted to take or retain it.
Democracy is the means by which we the people control government, it is not necessarily the means by which we the people limit government to the consent of the governed. Were that the case then we would have no republican Constitutional law in the first place and instead simply a pure democracy limited only by the will of the leaders we elect and the will of the people to elect and reelect them.
We the people thou our States must resolve this problem of Constitutionalism not thou federal election but thou nullification and interposition where necessary.
Dr. Gutzman makes a major mistake here, in confusing a state's People, with its GOVERNMENT.
For example, he says that the 2nd Amendment is all about keeping control of firearms in state GOVERNMENTS.
However, the 2nd Amendment expressly says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed– not the STATES.
Likewise, the 10th Amendment says that "any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states thereby, are reserved to the states respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."
Since the 2nd Amendment EXPRESSLY reserves this right to the PEOPLE of the states, then it is PROHIBITED to the states to infringe against the right to keep and bear arms. (Likewise, the power is NOT delegated to the United States).
Unfortunately, courts interpret the Constitution in a post-bellum context, i.e. that the United States is a NATION rather than a federal republic of nations; and therefore the term "People of the United States" does not refer to the stats respectively anymore, but COLLECTIVELY; and hence "the right of the People" technically means NOTHING. The federal courts have thus interepreted the 2nd Amendment to refer only to prohibitions against FEDERAL infringement– while STATE GOVERNMENTS are given a carte blanche to "infringe" all they want.
Apparently, Dr. Gutzman adheres to the warning in "Resolutions" about "the federal government being the judge of its own powers–" but strangely has no problem with STATE governments doing the same.
To date, virtually all infringements of firearm rights are STATE laws, not federal; and crime-rates are shown to vary in direct proportion to gun-rights.
Simply put, Dr. Gutzman either does not understand constitutional meanings, or does not want to stick his neck out due for fear of public ridicule or his professional reputation.
Actually, Brian – the 2nd amendment, and the rest of the constitution, except in specific places, applies solely to the federal government. The 2nd isn't a delegation of power or rights or anything of the sort. It's not a reservation of power or rights or anything of the sort either. It's a limitation on action or exercise of powers by the federal government. Gun laws in your state are the responsibility of you and other people living near you – and you should deal with your state government and state constitution to ensure that those rights are codified in law. Well, unless of course you actually trust the criminals in D.C. to protect your rights. I trust them even less than my state government.
Hi,
The "total" or “full” incorporation theory has never commanded a majority of the Court.Court began to incorporate particular Bill of Rights guarantees selectively as limits on the states.
The Slaughterhouse Cases is best known for reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment out of the Constitution. However, the case is also known for deciding that citizenship of a State was to be separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States. This, of course, has a direct bearing on citizenship under the Constitution. As before this case, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same.
In addition, "[t]he 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://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i... .
————
There is a desire, by many, to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. The reason centers on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who wish to overturn Slaughterhouse Cases believe: a) that there is only one citizen under the Constitution since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, b) that the privileges and immunities of this citizenship; that is citizenship of the United States, should be those described in Corfield v. Coryell. They do not know that there is a second citizenship now under the Constitution (and not the Fourteenth Amendment), and that this citizenship has those privileges and immunities described in Corfield v. Coryell. This citizenship is citizenship of the several States.
The fact there is a citizen of the several States in law is settled!
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_cont... . [Footnote]
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:
“In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).
The Supreme Court does not have to "restore" the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. People need to understand that there are now two citizens under the Constitution, each with a different set of privileges and immunities.
________________________
Footnote
So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:
http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.h...
—
The Slaughterhouse Cases is best known for reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment out of the Constitution. However, the case is also known for deciding that citizenship of a State was to be separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States. This, of course, has a direct bearing on citizenship under the Constitution. As before this case, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same.
In addition, "[t]he 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://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i... .
————
There is a desire, by many, to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. The reason centers on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who wish to overturn Slaughterhouse Cases believe: a) that there is only one citizen under the Constitution since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, b) that the privileges and immunities of this citizenship; that is citizenship of the United States, should be those described in Corfield v. Coryell. They do not know that there is a second citizenship now under the Constitution (and not the Fourteenth Amendment), and that this citizenship has those privileges and immunities described in Corfield v. Coryell. This citizenship is citizenship of the several States.
The fact there is a citizen of the several States in law is settled!
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_cont... . [Footnote]
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:
“In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).
The Supreme Court does not have to "restore" the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. People need to understand that there are now two citizens under the Constitution, each with a different set of privileges and immunities.
________________________
Footnote
So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:
http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.h...
—
The Slaughterhouse Cases is best known for reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment out of the Constitution. However, the case is also known for deciding that citizenship of a State was to be separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States. This, of course, has a direct bearing on citizenship under the Constitution. As before this case, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same.
In addition, "[t]he 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://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i... .
————
There is a desire, by many, to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases. The reason centers on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who wish to overturn Slaughterhouse Cases believe: a) that there is only one citizen under the Constitution since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, b) that the privileges and immunities of this citizenship; that is citizenship of the United States, should be those described in Corfield v. Coryell. They do not know that there is a second citizenship now under the Constitution (and not the Fourteenth Amendment), and that this citizenship has those privileges and immunities described in Corfield v. Coryell. This citizenship is citizenship of the several States.
The fact there is a citizen of the several States in law is settled!
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_cont... . [Footnote]
The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:
“In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).
The Supreme Court does not have to "restore" the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. People need to understand that there are now two citizens under the Constitution, each with a different set of privileges and immunities.
________________________
Footnote
So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:
http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.h...
—
To everyone,
I am writing to inform you that the link I provided in my prior comment (Dan Goodman "The Slaughterhouse Cases") no longer works. The new location for it is:
The fact there is a citizen of the several States in law is settled1
http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com...
____________
There is also the following which I think would be appropriate.
Comment on Petitioner's Brief: McDonald v. City of Chicago
http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/13...
____________