16, January 2007 Barron V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: 1833 Page 446 in Gunther and Sullivan Facts: Barron sued the city of Baltimore for ruining the use of his wharf in the harbor. Barrons claim is that Baltimore diverted the flow of streams while street construction work was going on. And this diversion of the streams, left "large masses of sand and earth" near where Barrons wharf was located. The water in the wharf became too shallow for most of the vessels. The original trial court awarded $45,000 to Barron but the appellate court of the state reversed that. Barron then claimed that this action by the state violated the 5 th amendment that private property shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation". Issue Presented: The individual freedoms that are protected under the Bill of Rights, do they apply only to the federal government or also to the state governments? Ruling: That the Constitution as made for the national government and does not apply directly to the states. The states each have their own Constitution, which they must adhere to. " . . . that the [just compensation] provision in the fifth amendment [is] intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States and is not applicable to the legislation of the states." Rationale: "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states." Lecture January 18, 2007
Barron Vs Baltimore: Relationship between federal protections and state localities pre civil-war era. Southern states rebelled against the federal government during the Civil War. They restructured the Constitution to impose federal/constitutional restrictions on states. Federal protections prior to 13th and 14th amendments were shown in Barron V. Baltimore.
Shows the state of constitutional law prior to civil-war amendments. The wharf was Barrons livelihood. Eminent Domain Clause private property may be taken for public use. But that requires a physical taking and transfer of title from one party to another. Opinion of the Court: Decided that they had no jurisdiction, no authority to rule on it. Marshall says that the provisions apply only to the peoples relationship to the federal government. Marshall has two arguments: 1.) founding of nation, real anxiety was for the power of the central government. Look at the Constitution, the power of the states was limited expressly (Article I Section 10). 2.) The writers of the Constitution would have written that all of the amendments applied to the states as well as the federal government. Slaughterhouse Cases: 1873 Page 453 in Gunther and Sullivan January 18, 2006
State of Louisiana enacted their police power Needed to regulate the slaughterhouses. 13th, 14th, 15th amendments try to limit the power of the states. It ended up with a 5-4 vote. Looks at the historical/original intent of the amendments. Argument was one that was premised on the "freedom of an individual to work". Dissenting Opinion: Freedom of labor is an indispensable property of man. Both Bradley and Field, due process of 14th amendment has substantive dimension. Due Process: State is obliged to give notice and opportunity to be heard if a state is doing wrong to an individual. There is a procedure for due process. January 23, 2007 To what extent did the 14 amendment which placed limitations on states incorporate the of bill rights to apply to the states? (known as the incorporation debate) Immunities and Privileges shorthand way of saying bill of rights.
th
Crandall v. Nevada: 1867 Page 460 in Gunther and Sullivan Taxed the people of Nevada when they wanted to leave. Makes it difficult to petition the national government when they cant make it there, without being taxed, and this violates the first amendment. This discourages the people from addressing problems. The Court invalidated this tax. The law changes in baby steps it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Edwards v. California: 1941 Page 460 in Gunther and Sullivan Knowing that a persons indigent. Mens Rea evil intent, evil mind. "guilty mind" Unanimously invalidated the law. Article I, Section 8 Congress can regulate commerce among states. An incident of national citizenship Shapiro v. Thompson: 1969 Page 460 in Gunther and Sullivan No welfare benefits until after one full year of residing in California. The court invalidated this law. Constitution guarantees free travel without inhibitions by the states. Right to travel is not absolute. "Compelling state interest" to limit travel is acceptable; however an example is not given. Right to travel domestically, unwritten in Constitution balanced against state interests. The dissenting opinion said that what the court is doing may be "illegitimate", it seems as though they are creating laws, instead of merely interpreting the Constitution. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County: 1974 Page 461 in Gunther and Sullivan Must have residency of one here before citizens can receive free nonemergency hospitalization. The precedent was set by Shapiro. Marshall says the medical care is like welfare, and is a basic necessity of life. Sosna v. Iowa: 1975 Page 462 in Gunther and Sullivan Must reside in a state before bringing a divorce action. The judge validates this law by saying that marital matters have always been a matter for the states to handle. Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion and he noted that "most states had ,,durational residency requirements for divorce". He says that "a state such as Iowa may quite reasonably decide that it does not wish to become a divorce mill".
Saenz v. Roe: 1999 Page 462 in Gunther and Sullivan In 1992, California enacted a statute limiting the maximum welfare benefits that are available to newly arrived residents. It limits the amount payable to a family that has reside in the State for less than 12 months to the amount payable by the State of the familys prior residence. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court. And say that they relied primarily on their decision in Shapiro v. Thompson, and they concluded that this statue placed "a penalty on the decision of new residents to migrate to the State and be treated on an equal basis with existing residents" What is at issue is the right to travel, the right of the newly arrived citizen of the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same state. This additional source of protection is plainly identified in the opening words of the fourteenth amendment. Justice Bradley wrote the dissent in the case. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissents also and joined by Justice Thomas. Rehnquist says that "the Court ignores a Statess need to assure that only persons who establish a bona fide residence receive the benefits provided to current residents of the State. [This] Court has consistently recognized that while new c