Sunday, March 25, 2012

The Slaughter-House Cases outline

The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
Application of Bill of Rights to the States could not be through the P or I Clause
Facts: LA law banned slaughter houses within the New Orleans city limit, with an exception for the Crescent City Company, which was given a monopoly as a result.

Butchers’ Arguments:
Said that 14th A. P or I clause protected their fundamental right to work at their trade.

Holding: P or I Clause not meant to protect individuals from state gov’t actions and not meant to be a basis for federal courts to invalidate state laws.
SC upheld law, rejected butchers arguments. Said P or I clause only protected a limited set of national rights. Said that P or I of 14th A. refers to citizens of US, while P & I clause of Article IV refers to citizens of states. Court said right to pursue a trade probably protected by Article IV, but this only applied to
discrimination against nonresidents. Also said that 13th and 14th As were to enacted to protect former slaves.

: Argued for broader reading of P or I Clause. Field stated that “all pursuits, all professions, all avocations are open” to American citizens equally.

: P or I Clause became defunct after this case. Slaughterhouse is still good law, selective incorporation occurs under DP not P or I. Instead of P or I bearing the weight of natural rights, it falls to EP and DP to carry the weight of protecting individual rights. Specifically, it falls to DP, which deals w/individual rights. The irony is that “due process” by definition is procedural.
  • Both Palko and Adamson rejected the total incorporation view of the 14th Amendment and instead adopted the “fundamental rights” or “ordered liberty” approach.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...