Talk:Privileges or Immunities Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This page should not redirect "Privileges and Immunities Clause." The United States Constitution has two distinct, although similar, clauses; the Article IV Privileges AND Immunities Clause, and the 14th Amendment Privileges OR Immunities Clause. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.48.164.187 (talk)

[edit] Interpretation

I've condensed this section a bit. The usual language is to say that the Court "recognized" stuff instead of "the court created two types of citizenship...." And I don't think it's correct to say that, by doing so, the Court "effectively removed the Privileges or Immunities Clause, opting instead to focus on Privileges and Immunities Clause to protect fundamental rights." The Court in Slaughterhouse arguably diluted the P or I Clause by narrowly interpreting rights of national citizenship --- not by saying that rights of national citizenship do or don't exist. And the Court in Slaughterhouse did not say that the P & I Clause of Article IV protects various fundamental rights (the Article IV Clause only protects out-of-state visitors from discrimination).

Also, I've removed the sentence that says, "the Due Process clause has generally been used to incorporate rights of the accused." Actually, the First Amendment has nothing to do with rights of the accused. And, regarding the Heller case, no state is involved in that litigation, so this Clause of the Constitution (which expressly limits the states rather than the federal government) is not directly at issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was recently added to the article: "Though it does not involve any state government except as amici curiae, it does address the question of the Second Amendment's applicability to governments other than the U.S. Federal Government." Actually, it's by no means clear that the D.C. government is not part of the U.S. Federal Government. For example, see this statement from the U.S. Supreme Court:

"When a territorial government enacts and enforces criminal laws to govern its inhabitants, it is not acting as an independent political community like a State, but as 'an agency of the federal government.' Domenech v. National City Bank, 294 U.S. 199, 204 -205."

So, I'll correct the article accordingly, to give it a neutral point of view.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)