Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (95750)	3/25/2009 11:43:01 PM
From: Sr K	Respond to of 116555

You have to take them one at a time and phrase by phrase. In the 14th Amendment, Section 1, second sentence, for instance, there is a first part for "citizens of the United States" and a second part for "any person" (twice). AFAIK. - Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. 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.

To: John Metcalf who wrote (95750)	3/26/2009 8:33:14 PM
From: Sr K	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

This letter to the editor in today's WSJ discusses Amendment 14. Privileges, Immunities and Our Constitutional Rights The Weekend Journal contains an interesting article on liberal and conservative commentators who are promoting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution ("Rethinking Original Intent," March 14). You quote former Solicitor General Paul Clement as saying that if the court were to use the Privileged or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to limit state government "at the end of that whole upheaval you might end up basically in the same place." Not so. The Privileges or Immunities Clause only refers to "citizens." That means, first of all, that it wouldn't protect "persons." The Due Process Clause, in contrast, specifically applies to "persons." If the court were to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause to apply the various portions of the Bill of Rights (e.g., First Amendment free speech) to limit the states, those rights wouldn't protect aliens, even lawfully resident aliens. Second, the court, since 1886, has said that corporations are "persons" under the Due Process Clause, but no case says that corporations are "citizens" under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. If the court had used the Privileges and Immunities Clause to apply free speech to the states, corporations like Dow Jones wouldn't have the protection of free speech. Thankfully, the court has used the Due Process Clause, which serves to give us broader protections. As for the Second Amendment, the issue is whether the court will incorporate that right against the states. The court hasn't had a chance to consider that issue since it began its modern incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights. I wouldn't be surprised if the modern court incorporates the right to bear arms. And, if it does so, I predict that it will use the Due Process Clause. I normally don't make predictions because it provides evidence of my fallibility, but I'm willing to risk it this time. Ronald D. Rotunda Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence Chapman University School of Law Orange, Calif. online.wsj.com