The Meanings of the 'Privileges and Immunities of Citizens' on the Eve of the Civil War

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
David R. Upham
{"title":"The Meanings of the 'Privileges and Immunities of Citizens' on the Eve of the Civil War","authors":"David R. Upham","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2107460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents important, largely-overlooked evidence concerning the antebellum understanding of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, with an eye toward illuminating the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.This article explains that from 1857 to 1861, in the course of prominent national political debates, three contrasting interpretations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause arose: (1) a pro-slavery absolute-rights reading adopted by southern Democrats and some northern Democrats; (2) an anti-slavery absolute-rights reading adopted by Republicans; and (3) a strictly interstate-equality reading held by some northern and border-state Democrats. The prominence, if not dominance, of the first two readings represented, in some respects, radical developments relative to the interpretations that had prevailed in the courts and political debates before 1857. These first two readings, at the same time, effectively marginalized the interstate-equality reading that still largely prevailed in the courts.This article concludes by noting the ways in which this evidence illuminates both the original understanding of the “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the reason why the Fourteenth Amendment proved so vulnerable to judicial misconstruction.","PeriodicalId":47176,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2107460","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article presents important, largely-overlooked evidence concerning the antebellum understanding of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, with an eye toward illuminating the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.This article explains that from 1857 to 1861, in the course of prominent national political debates, three contrasting interpretations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause arose: (1) a pro-slavery absolute-rights reading adopted by southern Democrats and some northern Democrats; (2) an anti-slavery absolute-rights reading adopted by Republicans; and (3) a strictly interstate-equality reading held by some northern and border-state Democrats. The prominence, if not dominance, of the first two readings represented, in some respects, radical developments relative to the interpretations that had prevailed in the courts and political debates before 1857. These first two readings, at the same time, effectively marginalized the interstate-equality reading that still largely prevailed in the courts.This article concludes by noting the ways in which this evidence illuminates both the original understanding of the “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the reason why the Fourteenth Amendment proved so vulnerable to judicial misconstruction.
内战前夕“公民特权与豁免”的意义
本文提出了重要的,在很大程度上被忽视的证据,涉及内战前对第四条特权和豁免条款的理解,旨在阐明第十四修正案的特权或豁免条款。从1857年到1861年,在重大的全国政治辩论过程中,对特权和豁免条款产生了三种截然不同的解释:(1)南方民主党人和一些北方民主党人采用了一种支持奴隶制的绝对权利解读;(2)共和党人采用的反对奴隶制的绝对权利解读;(3)一些北部和边境州的民主党人严格地认为州际平等。前两篇解读的突出,如果不是主导,在某些方面代表了,与1857年之前在法庭和政治辩论中盛行的解释相比,激进的发展。与此同时,前两种解读有效地边缘化了州际平等解读,这种解读在法庭上仍然很大程度上占主导地位。本文最后指出,这些证据如何阐明了对第十四条修正案所保障的“美国公民的特权和豁免”的最初理解,以及第十四条修正案为何如此容易受到司法误解的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1925, a group of eager and idealistic students founded the Notre Dame Lawyer. Its name was changed in 1982 to the Notre Dame Law Review, but all generations have remained committed to the original founders’ vision of a law review “synonymous with respect for law, and jealous of any unjust attacks upon it.” Today, the Law Review maintains its tradition of excellence, and its membership includes some of the most able and distinguished judges, professors, and practitioners in the country. Entirely student edited, the Law Review offers its members an invaluable occasion for training in precise analysis of legal problems and in clear and cogent presentation of legal issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信