1st amendment jurisprudence
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:00:39 -0700
Article IV Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Doesn't mean they can't enforce a law that says 'no beer sales on
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court, at first, did not allow the Due Process clause to be
used to expand individual liberties (1870's and 1880's). Eventually,
though, it was used to protect more than just former slaves.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:31 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: 1st amendment jurisprudence
> John Hall:
> >The one we ratified, and that the First Amendment was
> >part of, did not restrict such things. An early Supreme Court
> >_pointedly_ said that the amendment did not restrict a State from
> >recreating the Inquisition if it so chose.
> Maybe you're thinking of the Barron case.
> >The freedom of religion decisions you are fond of are
> >a judicial invention based on the "incorporation theory" of the civil
> Yeah, it's this strange notion that no state shall make
> or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
> immunities of citizens of the United States. The courts
> just sort of snuck that right in. How'd they do that?
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.