CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall
2006
Assignment #17
[Ch. 6. THE SCOPE OF STATE
POWER]
5. Effect
of Other Constitutional Provisions on State Regulatory Power
A. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of
Art. IV, Section 2
- The
two "P&I" clauses: 14th Amendment s. 1 and Art. IV:
what do they mean?
- 14thA.:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
- Art. IV §2 cl 1: "The citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States."
- UNITED
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL V. CAMDEN, p. 356.
- What activity is the city regulating, and to
what purpose?
- Does the regulation discriminate against persons
based on their being citizens of other states? Does it do so in respect
of a "fundamental right"?
- Does it matter that it is a city (municipal corporation) rather than a state is doing
the discriminating?
- Does it matter that the discrimination also
adversely affects persons who are citizens (residents) of the same state,
but of different communities within the state?
- How does this case compare with White?
- Suppose the city imposed a residency requirement
on city employees as such?
- would
it constitute a citizenship-discrimination in respect of a fundamental
right?
- would
the market participant doctrine have a place here?
- SUPREME
COURT OF VIRGINIA V. FRIEDMAN, p. 362 (1988)
- what
regulation is being challenged, and on what ground?
- what
is the purpose of the regulation?
- could
Virginia require all persons to take and
pass the Virginia
bar examination in order to be admitted to practice there?
- would
the decision have been different, if the plaintiff had been a resident of
Seattle licensed by the state of Washington, with
an active law office in that city?
- what
problems might such an applicant present to the Virginia bar?
- how
could those problems be addressed, consistent with the constitution?
- compare Barnard v. Thorstenn,
p. 367 (1989)