The court concluded that a “company” is not a “citizen” in the sense of pic4, but an grant of special privileges by the state of origin. Thus, it was established early on that, although the protection afforded by the trade clause is far-reaching in that it applies to enterprises and other entities, as well as to individuals, PIC4 protection would extend only to individuals. According to Supreme Court cases, the privileges and immunities that no state can shorten include only a limited number of legal protections related to clearly national citizenship as opposed to citizenship. In the Court`s view, the fundamental statutory rights of private law, such as property, contracts, and family relationships, are not related to U.S. citizenship as such. Rather, these rights are linked to the citizenship of the state. National citizenship rights also did not include protection of the first eight additions, as these restrictions could apply to states rather than the United States. Although the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment applies most of these restrictions to States, it considers that this result is not achieved by the privilege or immunity clause. However, in various concurring and dissenting opinions over the years, several members of the Court have emphasized the importance of the privilege or immunity clause as a key or key element in the application of the various rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights against state and local governments. B such as the right to speak and pray freely. The Court established certain national citizenship rights under the clause, such as the right to travel from one State to another and to establish residence in a new State. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the privileges and immunities clause as requiring each state to protect general civil rights beyond those that the state already protects for its own citizens, even if even one state`s own citizens are allowed to leave the state to enjoy privileges and immunities in any other state.
The privilege and immunity clause is self-executing, i.e. its application depends on the judicial process. It does not approve congressional criminal legislation. Federal laws prohibiting conspiracies to deprive a person of rights or privileges guaranteed by state laws, 16Footnote United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 643 (1883). See also Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S.
678 (1887). or The Punishment of Violations by Individuals of the Right of Citizens to Reside Peacefully in the Various States and to Have Free Entry and Exit from Those States,17Footnote United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920). were declared disabled. The dormant trade clause is not the only constitutional limit on a state`s ability to enact laws that affect non-states. The privileges and immunity clause of article IV ensures that a citizen outside the State enjoys the same privileges as a citizen of the State in which he or she is currently present. The negative effects of the trade clause discussed in theme 3 prevent States from acting in such a way as to influence inter-State trade. The privilege and immunity clause in Article IV (“PIC4”) protects citizens from discrimination in matters of “fundamental rights”. So who are these “citizens” and what are these “fundamental rights”? Privileges and immunities of United States citizenship that cannot be unduly restricted by state laws include the right to travel from one state to another; the right to vote in federal offices; the right to enter Public lands; the right to ask Congress to remedy grievances; the right to inform the national government of a violation of its laws; the right to be protected from violence while in federal custody; the right of free access to U.S. seaports; the right to do business with the U.S. government and to participate in the administration of U.S.
government functions; the right of access to federal courts; and the privilege of habeas corpus. The privileges and immunities set forth in article IV, section 2, of the Constitution stipulate that “the citizens of each State shall have the right to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the various States”. This clause protects the fundamental rights of citizens and hinders the state`s efforts to discriminate against citizens outside the state. However, the privilege and immunity clause does not extend to all commercial activities, but only to fundamental rights. In the exercise of its power of taxation, a State may not discriminate significantly between residents and non-residents. In ward v. Maryland,61Footnote 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 418, 424 (1871). See also Downham v.
Alexandria Council, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 173, 175 (1870). The court struck down a state law that imposed specific taxes on foreigners for the privilege of selling products made in other states of the state. A Tennessee license fee, the amount of which depended on whether the person taxed had its registered office inside or outside the state, was also inconsistent with the courtesy clause.62Footnote Chalker v. Birmingham & N.W. Ry., 249 U.S. 522 (1919). In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 63Footnote 252 U.S.
60 (1920). the Court, although it upheld a state`s right to tax income accruing to non-residents within its borders,64Footnote 252 U.S. to 62-64. See also Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920). In Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975), the court struck down a state commuter income tax because the state did not impose income tax on its own residents, so the tax fell exclusively on the income of non-residents and was not even far offset by other taxes imposed only on residents.
cancelled the tax at issue because it refused the exemptions granted to residents. The terms “resident” and “citizen” are not synonymous, Judge Pitney wrote,. . . but a general tax system.. if it discriminates against all non-residents, it has the necessary effect of including those who are citizens of other states in discrimination . . .
65Footnote 252 U.S. 60, 78–79 (1920). Where there was no discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, a state law was maintained that taxed the hiring of people in the state for non-state workers.66Note Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900). The clause contained in article IV of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against persons of other States by a State, but only within the framework of their fundamental civil rights. The courts use a two-part test to determine whether the privilege and immunity clause has been violated. This clause guarantees U.S.
citizens the same basic rights, regardless of where they travel in the country or in which state they travel. The framers of the Constitution felt that this would be an important and necessary guarantee to encourage people to travel to different parts of the vast country they had just colonized. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects certain “privileges” and “immunities” that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution (such as the right to privacy). In fact, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment invites interpreters to seek out all rights recognized as fundamental by Americans, from those enshrined in state constitutions to those contained in canonical texts (such as the Declaration of Independence), to those protected by fundamental civil rights laws (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1866). to those confirmed by the lived experiences of ordinary Americans and the daily practices of their governments. For judges, this means going beyond the individual preferences of judges and seeking the fundamental rights that are truly recognized by the American people. The privilege or immunity clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to civil rights associated with national and state citizenship. .
