Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes of Diversity of Citizenship

    Enviado por

    Dan Goodman
    95 visualizações10 páginas
    In any State of the Union, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, there are now two distinct state citizens. The first is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The next is recognized at Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution is a citizen of the several States. A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a citizen of the United States. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are not the same as privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States. Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74, 1873). Therefore, there are two distinct state citizens. Chadwick v. Kelley (187 U.S. 540, at 546, 1903). Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to controversies between Citizens of different States.” Jurisdiction then of the courts of the United States is declared to extend to controversies between “citizens of different States.” A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, only has to aver that he or she is a citizen of a State of the Union. Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, at 115 thru 116, 1834). A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is to aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 141 and 142, 1905). See also Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 383, 1904). A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, can pursue a cause of action against another citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Brown v. Flectcher (235 U.S. 589, at 594, 1914). Thus, there are two distinct state citizens for purposes of diversity of citizenship.

    Título original

    Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes Of Diversity Of Citizenship

    Direitos autorais

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    In any State of the Union, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, there are now two distinct state citizens. The first is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The next is recognized at Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution is a citizen of the several States. A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a citizen of the United States. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are not the same as privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States. Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74, 1873). Therefore, there are two distinct state citizens. Chadwick v. Kelley (187 U.S. 540, at 546, 1903). Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to controversies between Citizens of different States.” Jurisdiction then of the courts of the United States is declared to extend to controversies between “citizens of different States.” A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, only has to aver that he or she is a citizen of a State of the Union. Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, at 115 thru 116, 1834). A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is to aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 141 and 142, 1905). See also Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 383, 1904). A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, can pursue a cause of action against another citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Brown v. Flectcher (235 U.S. 589, at 594, 1914). Thus, there are two distinct state citizens for purposes of diversity of citizenship.

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    95 visualizações10 páginas

    Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes of Diversity of Citizenship

    Enviado por

    Dan Goodman
    In any State of the Union, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, there are now two distinct state citizens. The first is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The next is recognized at Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution is a citizen of the several States. A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a citizen of the United States. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are not the same as privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States. Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74, 1873). Therefore, there are two distinct state citizens. Chadwick v. Kelley (187 U.S. 540, at 546, 1903). Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to controversies between Citizens of different States.” Jurisdiction then of the courts of the United States is declared to extend to controversies between “citizens of different States.” A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, only has to aver that he or she is a citizen of a State of the Union. Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, at 115 thru 116, 1834). A citizen of a State, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is to aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 141 and 142, 1905). See also Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 383, 1904). A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, can pursue a cause of action against another citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Brown v. Flectcher (235 U.S. 589, at 594, 1914). Thus, there are two distinct state citizens for purposes of diversity of citizenship.

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 10

    TwoDistinctStateCitizens ForPurposesOf DiversityOfCitizenship

    2012DanGoodman InanyStateoftheUnion,sincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmentand theSlaughterhouseCases,therearenowtwodistinctstatecitizens.Thefirstis recognizedatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution: TheCitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallPrivilegesandImmunitiesof CitizensintheseveralStates. ThenextisrecognizedatSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment: AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereinthey reside. ThedifferencebetweenthemisacitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2, Clause1oftheConstitutionisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,butacitizenofthe severalStates: TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenth amendment.Bradwellv.theStateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    TherecanbenodoubtthatBalk,asacitizenoftheStateofNorthCarolina,had therighttosueHarrisinMarylandtorecoverthedebtwhichHarrisowedhim. BeingacitizenofNorthCarolina,hewasentitledtoalltheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates,oneofwhichistherighttoinstitute 1

    actionsinthecourtsofanotherState.Harrisv.Balk:198U.S.215,at223(1905).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Inspeakingofthemeaningofthephraseprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensoftheseveralStates,undersectionsecond,articlefourth,ofthe Constitution,itwassaidbythepresentChiefJustice,inColev.Cunningham,133U.S. 107,thattheintentionwastoconferonthecitizensoftheseveralStatesageneral citizenship,andtocommunicatealltheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichthe citizensofthesameStatewouldbeentitledtounderthelikecircumstances,andthis includestherighttoinstituteactions.Maxwellv.Dow:176U.S.581,at592 (1900).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

    PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheUnitedStatesarelocatedinthe FourteenthAmendment,atSection1,Clause2andariseoutofthenatureand essentialcharacteroftheFederalgovernment,andgrantedorsecuredbythe Constitution(Duncanv.StateofMissouri:152U.S.377,at382,1894)or,inother words,owetheirexistencetotheFederalgovernment,itsNationalcharacter,its Constitution,oritslaws(SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)38,at79,1873).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveralStatesarethosedescribedin Corfieldv.CoryelldecidedbyMr.JusticeWashingtonintheCircuitCourtforthe DistrictofPennsylvaniain1825: IntheSlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,76,indefiningtheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates,thisisquotedfromtheopinionofMr. JusticeWashingtoninCorfieldv.Coryell,4Wash.Cir.Ct.371,380.Hodgesv.United States:203U.S.1,at15(1906).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=HuEGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheUnitedStatesarenotthesameas privilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveralStates:

    Wethinkthisdistinctionanditsexplicitrecognitioninthisamendmentofgreat 2

    weightinthisargument,becausethenextparagraphofthissamesection(Section1, Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment),whichistheonemainlyreliedonbythe plaintiffsinerror,speaksONLYofprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensofthe UnitedStates,anddoesnotspeakofthose(privilegesandimmunities)ofcitizensof theseveralStates.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873). [Footnote1]


    http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Therefore,therearetwodistinctstatecitizens: Becausetheordinanceandspecifications,underwhichthepavinginthiscase wasdone,requirethecontractortoemployonlybonafideresidentcitizensofthe cityofNewOrleansaslaborersonthework,itiscontended,onbehalfonthe plaintiffinerror,thattherebycitizensoftheStateofLouisiana,andofeachand everyStateandtheinhabitantsthereof,aredeprivedoftheirprivilegesand immunitiesunderarticle4,sec.2,andundertheFourteenthAmendmenttothe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Itissaidthatsuchanordinancedeprivesevery person,notabonafideresidentofthecityofNewOrleans,oftherighttolaboron thecontemplatedimprovements,andalsoisprejudicialtothepropertyowners, because,byrestrictingthenumberofworkmen,thepriceoftheworkisincreased. Suchquestionsareofthegravestpossibleimportance,and,ifandwhenactually presented,woulddemandmostcarefulconsideration;butwearenotnowcalled upontodeterminethem. Insofarastheprovisionsofthecityordinancemaybeclaimedtoaffecttherights andprivilegesofcitizensofLouisianaandoftheotherStates,theplaintiffinerroris innopositiontoraisethequestion.Itisnotalleged,nordoesitappear,thatheis oneofthelaborersexcludedbytheordinancefromemployment,orthatheoccupies anyrepresentativerelationtothem.Apparentlyheisoneofthepreferredclassof residentcitizensofthecityofNewOrleans.Chadwickv.Kelley:187U.S.540,at 546(1903).[Footnote2][Footnote3]
    http://books.google.com/books?id=bdkGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA546#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    ArticleIII,Section2oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaprovides that[t]hejudicialPowershallextendtocontroversiesbetweenCitizensofdifferent States.JurisdictionthenofthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesisdeclaredtoextendto controversiesbetweencitizensofdifferentStates. 3

    AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,is consideredtobecitizensofdifferentStatesunderthisprovisionofthe Constitution: Thenextinquiry,growingoutofthispartoftheclause,is,whoaretobe deemedcitizensofdifferentStates,withinthemeaningofit.Areallpersonsborn withinaStatetobealwaysdeemedcitizensofthatState,notwithstandingany changeofdomicil?Ordoestheircitizenshipchangewiththeirchangeofdomicil? Theanswertothisinquiryisequallyplainandsatisfactory.TheConstitutionhaving declared,thatthecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates,everyperson,whoisacitizenofone State,andremovesintoanother,withtheintentionoftakinguphisresidenceand inhabitancythere,becomesipsofactoacitizenoftheState,whereheresides;andhe thenceasestobeacitizenoftheState,fromwhichhehasremovedhisresidence.Of course,whenhegivesuphisnewresidence,ordomicil,andreturnstohisnative,or otherStateresidenceordomicil,hereacquiresthecharacterofthelatter.What circumstancesshallconstitutesuchachangeofresidenceordomicil,isaninquiry, moreproperlybelongingtoatreatiseuponpublicormunicipallaw,thanto commentariesuponconstitutionallaw.Ingeneral,however,itmaybesaid,thata removalfromoneStateintoanother,withanintentionofresidence,orwithadesign ofbecominganinhabitant,constitutesachangeofdomicil,andofcourseachangeof citizenship.Butaperson,whoisanativecitizenofoneState,neverceasestobea citizenthereof,untilhehasacquiredanewcitizenshipelsewhere.AFamiliar ExpositionOfTheConstitutionOfTheUnitedStates...;JosephStory,LL.D.; (Boston:Marsh,Capen,Lyon,andWebb);1840;Section344,Page207.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Aew9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA207#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,only hastoaverthatheorsheisacitizenofaStateoftheUnion: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil;butthepetitionDOESNOTAVERthatthe plaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... 4

    Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).{BeforetheFourteenthAmendment}
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenofaState,underSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,isto averthatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateofthe Union: ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment} TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment}[Footnote4]
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,can pursueacauseofactionagainstanothercitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section 2,Clause1oftheConstitution: TheappellantsbroughtsuitintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthern DistrictofNewYorkforthepurposeofrecoveringfromtheTrusteeaninterestina 5

    trustestatewhichhadbeensold,transferredandassignedbyConradMorrisBraker, thebeneficiary.ThecomplainantswerecitizensandresidentsofPennsylvania. BothdefendantswerecitizensandresidentsofNewYork.Notwithstandingthe diversityofcitizenship,thecourtdismissedthebillonthegroundthat,asthe assignorBraker,acitizenofNewYork,couldnotintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt, havesuedFletcher,TrusteeandcitizenofthesameState,neithercouldthe Complainants,hisassignees,suetherein,eventhoughtheywereresidentsofthe StateofPennsylvania. Theappealfromthatdecisioninvolvesaconstructionof24oftheJudicialCode, whichlimitsthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtwhensuitisbrought therein...torecoveruponanypromissorynoteorotherchoseinactioninfavor ofanyassignee.....Brownv.Flectcher:235U.S.589,at594thru595(1914). {AftertheFourteenthAmendment}
    http://books.google.com/books?id=44GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA594#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Thus,therearetwodistinctstatecitizensforpurposesofdiversityofcitizenship. ________________________ Footnotes: 1....TheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates protectedbythefourteenthamendment,areprivilegesandimmunitiesarisingout ofthenatureandessentialcharacterofthefederalGovernment,andgrantedor securedbytheConstitution.Duncanv.Missouri(1904)152U.S.377,14Sup.Ct.570, 38L.Ed.485;SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,21L.Ed.394. Theprovisionsofsection2,art.4,ofthefederalConstitution,thatcitizensof eachstateshallbeentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveral states,areheldtobesynonymouswithrightsofthecitizens.Corfieldv.Coryell, supra.Thissectionisakintotheprovisionofsection1ofthefourteenth amendment,asrespectsprivilegesandimmunities,buttheformerisheldnotto maketheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)enjoyedbycitizensoftheseveral statesthemeasureoftheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)tobeenjoyedasof right,byacitizenofanotherstate,underitsConstitutionandlaws.McKanev. Durston,153U.S.684,14Sup.Ct.913,38L.Ed.867.Thisrulenecessarilyclassifies citizensintheirrightstotheextentthatacitizenofonestatewheninanotherstate mustbegovernedbythesameruleswhichapplytothecitizensofthatstateasto 6

    matterswhichareofthedomesticconcernofthestate.Colev.Cunningham,133U.S. 107,10Sup.Ct.269,33L.Ed.538;Peoplev.Gallagher,93N.Y.438,45Am.Rep.232; ButchersUnionv.CrescentCity,Mo.,111U.S.746,4SupCt.652,28L.Ed.585;Ex parteKinney,14Fed.Cas.602;Douglasv.Stephens,1Del.Ch.465.Strangev.Board ofCommission:91N.E.242,at246(1910).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=T_QKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    2.Thereisalsothefollowing: TheConstitutionforbidstheabridgingoftheprivilegesofacitizenoftheUnited States,butdoesnotforbidthestatefromabridgingtheprivilegesofitsowncitizens. TherightswhichapersonhasasacitizenoftheUnitedStatesarethosewhich theConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStatesconferuponacitizenasacitizenof theUnitedStates.Forinstance,amanisacitizenofastatebyvirtueofhisbeing residentthere;but,ifhemovesintoanotherstate,hebecomesatonceacitizen therebyoperationoftheConstitution(Section1,Clause1oftheFourteenth Amendment)makinghimacitizenthere;andneedsnospecialnaturalization,which, butfortheConstitution,hewouldneed. Ontheotherhand,therightsandprivilegeswhichacitizenofastatehasare thosewhichpertaintohimasamemberofsociety,andwhichwouldbehisifhis statewerenotamemberoftheUnion.Overthesethestateshavetheusualpower belongingtogovernment,subjecttotheprovisothattheyshallnotdenytoany personwithinthejurisdiction(i.e.,totheirowncitizens,thecitizensofotherstates, oraliens)theequalprotectionofthelaws.Thesepowersextendtoallobjects, which,intheordinarycourseofaffairs,concernthelives,liberties,privileges,and propertiesofpeople,andoftheinternalorder,improvement,andprosperityofthe state.Federalist,No.45Hopkinsv.CityofRichmond:86S.E.Rep.139,at145;117 Va.692;Ann.Cas.1917D,1114(1915),citingtheentireopinionofTownofAshland v.Coleman,initsopinion(percuriam);overruledonothergrounds,Irvinev.Cityof CliftonForge:97S.E.Rep.310,310;124Va.781(1918),citingtheSupremeCourtof theUnitedStatescaseofBuchananv.Warley,245U.S.60;38Sup.Ct.16,62L.Ed. 149.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=oDY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

    TownofAshlandv.Coleman:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=1SoZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA427#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ...Itiscontendedthatthe1stsectionoftheFourteenthAmendmenthasbeen violated?ThatsectiondeclaresthatallpersonsbornintheUnitedStatesare citizensoftheUnitedStatesandtheStatewhereintheyreside,andprovidesthat noStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesorcitizens oftheUnitedStates,nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequal protectionofthelaws.Thissection,afterdeclaringthatallpersonsborninthe UnitedStatesshallbecitizens(1)oftheUnitedStatesand(2)oftheStatewherein theyreside,goesoninthesamesentencetoprovidethatnoStateshallabridgethe privilegesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;butdoesnotgoontoforbidaStatefrom abridgingtheprivilegesofitsowncitizens.Leavingthematterofabridgingthe privilegesofitsowncitizenstothediscretionofeachState,thesectionproceeds,in regardtothelatter,onlytoprovidethatnoStateshalldenytoanypersonwithinits jurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.... TherightswhichapersonhasacitizenofaStatearethosewhichpertaintohim asamemberofsociety,andwhichwouldbelongtohimifhisStatewerenota memberoftheAmericanUnion.OverthesetheStateshavetheusualpowers belongingtogovernment,andthesepowersextendtoallobjects,which,inthe ordinarycourseofaffairs,concernthelives,liberties,(privileges),andpropertiesof people;andoftheinternalorder,improvement,andprosperityoftheState. Federalist,No.45.... Ontheotherhand,therightswhichapersonhasasacitizenoftheUnitedStates aresuchashehasbyvirtueofhisStatebeingamemberoftheAmericanUnion undertheprovisionsofourNationalConstitution.Forinstance,amanisacitizenof aStatebyvirtueofhisbeingnativeandresidentthere;but,ifheemigratesinto anotherStatehebecomesatonceacitizentherebyoperationoftheprovisionofthe Constitution(Section1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment)makinghima citizenthere;andneedsnospecialnaturalization,which,butfortheConstitution,he wouldneedtobecomeacitizen.ExParteEdmundKinney:3Hughes9,at12thru 14(1879)[4thcirctVa.].
    http://books.google.com/books?id=pB0TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false

    3.ItistobenotedthatprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenofaStatearethosein theconstitutionandlawsoftheindividualState: ...Whatevermaybethescopeofsection2ofarticleIVandweneednot,in thiscaseenteruponaconsiderationofthegeneralquestiontheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesdoesnotmaketheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbythe citizensofoneStateundertheconstitutionandlawsofthatState,themeasureofthe 8

    privilegesandimmunitiestobeenjoyed,asofright,byacitizenofanotherState underitsconstitutionandlaws.McKanev.Durston:153U.S.684,at687(1894).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=mmkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    4.ThiscanbeseenalsointhecaseofSunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv. Edwards(194U.S.377,1904):{AftertheFourteenthAmendment} WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect 9

    achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappeared[Footnote5]thathewasa citizenoftheUnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationofthe FourteenthAmendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateof Delaware.Andersonv.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delaware beingthelegaldomicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizen ofanotherState,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies, theCircuitCourtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelight ofthetestimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwards wasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonably construed,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenofthe StateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze, 8Wall.342.SunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381 thru383(1904).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

    5.Thatis,fromtheavermentofcitizenshiporotherpartsoftherecord. 10

    Você também pode gostar