Justia Lawyer Rating
Best Lawyer
Super Lawyer - Top 100
Super Lawyer - Top 100
Best Lawyers
Avvo Rating 10.0
AV Preeminent
The National Trial Lawyers
The Best Lawyers in America
Best Lawyers
CLEA
Advocates for Justice
Business North Carolina Legal Elite - 2021
DUI Defense
NBTA
*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

Constitutional Law II Outline - Professor Wallace - Campbell Law - Part 1

By Miller Moreau
Professor Wallace - 2020

Download the PDF version of this outline

Part 2 >>

Chapter 3. Federalism Article IV Federalism

Provisions that bind the states to another as one union.

Section One: Full Faith and Credit: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state”

  • Final judicial decrees of other states are recognized and enforced, but not the laws in themselves
  • A state is free to apply its own laws to any matter in its courts as long as some connection to that state means it would not be fundamentally unfair for that state to apply its own laws
    • Example-Marriage in NC but divorce in VA, NC still recognizes VA divorce judgment
  • Lemmon v. The People
    • Slave-owners from VA try to travel to Texas, go through NY (free state) with their slaves, owners then get writ of habeas corpus
  • Issue 1) Was NY bound to honor the Lemmons’ claim to dominion over their slaves as a matter of the FF&C Clause? (see note 4)
    • No, FF&C enforces judgments, not laws of slave state → but slaves become free based on NY judgment
    • Owners can’t carry laws of VA into NY with them
  • Issue 2) Was NY bound to honor the Lemmons’ claimed rights of property under the Privileges and Immunities Clause?
    • No, NY must only treat slaves/owners same as they would their own citizens’ fundamental rights, which is exactly what they did (slavery was outlawed there)
      • Right to slavery not a fundamental right
  • Since Lemmons took slaves voluntarily → fugitive slave clause didn’t apply
    • If owners had already returned slaves back to VA → probs wouldn’t have been freed

Section Two, cl. One: Privileges AND Immunities: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states”

  • Different than 14A Privileges or immunity clause
  • Rule : State must accord out-of-staters the same fundamental privileges and immunities that it gives to its own citizens
    • Example- cannot discriminate against out of stators w/ respect to civil rights, must give out of stators rights it gives to its OWN citizens
      • Can still discriminate against out of stators w/ respect to political rights and state resources jointly-owned by state citizens
        • Right to vote, stand for elective office, and serve on juries
  • What are “privileges and immunities”?
    • See pg. 710, 719-20
    • Natural/common rights
  • Lemmon v. The People
  • Issue 2) Was NY bound to honor the Lemmons’ claimed rights of property under the Privileges and Immunities Clause?
    • No, NY must only treat slaves/owners same as they would their own citizens’ fundamental rights, which is exactly what they did (slavery was outlawed there)
      • Right to slavery not a fundamental right
  • Since Lemmons took slaves voluntarily → fugitive slave clause didn’t apply
    • If owners had already returned slaves back to VA → probs wouldn’t have been freed

Section Two, cl. Two: Extradition Clause:

  • Slaves who escape to another state “shall be delivered up” on claim of the person to whom that service may be due

Section Two, cl. Three: Fugitive Slave Clause: “ No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. ”

  • Prigg v. PA
    • PA anti-kidnapping law prohibited self-help to retrieve fugitive slaves and required legal proceedings to retain slaves
      • Fugitive Slave clause invalidates PA law affecting fugitives
      • Yet it provides Congress the power to pass legislation for rendition of fugitive slaves
        • Thus → this power preempts state power even if Congress has not exercised its legislative power in a manner preempting these state laws
      • Likely that textualist approach would not have struck down state law seen in Prigg

Section Three: Admission of New States:

Section Four: Guarantee Clause: Guarantees every state a republican form of government

Territories Clause, New States Admission Clause, and citizenship

  • Dred Scott
    • Scott was slave in VA, owners sell him to Emerson
      • Emerson brings Scott to areas that barred slavery by national legislation, lets Scott marry in WS (free state), Emerson later dies in LS and his wife inherits Scott.
      • Scott sues wife in MS fed court trying to get his freedom → MS state law (diversity jurisdiction) didn’t recognize him as citizen based on MS P&I
    • What “citizenship” rights each state may confer that are binding on other states?
      1. Court: African Americans are “inferior race”, can’t sue or be part of relevant political community
        1. Invents national citizenship requirement. At the time, state citizenship provided platform for national citizenship (before 14A)
        2. Even though “foreign citizens” still have the right to sue
      2. Whether one state (MO) must apply another state’s law (IL) to adjudicate the legal status—slave or free—of someone before its courts?
      3. Whether Congress has plenary legislative power for territories under the Territory Clause?
      4. Whether the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional? (substantive due process)
        1. Unconstitutional because it deprives slave owners of their property without due process
        2. Since Scott is not a citizen, court didn’t actually have jurisdiction → proceeded anyways to invalidate Missouri compromise for political reasons
        3. Court says territories clause is limited to territories existing at the time of its adoption
    • Scott probs would have won if he brought suit in IL or WS, but didn’t have that judgment from the free
      • If Scott would have sued in Illinois, would have been similar to Lemmon v. The People
        • Gained freedom in Illinois, and if Missouri tried to make him a slave, would have violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause
Chapter 6. Reconstruction Amendments

Thirteenth Amendment (1865)

  • Forbids slavery and involuntary servitude (repudiates Missouri Compromise Holding of Dred Scott → owning slaves is not a right)
  • Regulates private conduct as well as government action
  • Grants congress power to regulate

Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

  • Establishes substantive protections (citizenship, privileges or immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection) which can be enforced by courts against state action
    • Not federal or private
  • Grants Congress the power to legislate these types of acts
  • Requires State Action!
  • Repealed ⅗ compromise
    • But reduces representation for states that wouldn’t let blacks vote
  • Slaughter House Cases: Soon after 14A, NOLA monopolized the butcher industry to abate an ongoing nuisance problem, butchers association sued alleging that the law violated the servitude substantive due process, Privileges & Immunities Clause, and the EP Clause
    • Due Process: Fundamentally unfair
      • Arg.- law strips butchers of life, liberty
      • Dismissed quickly
    • Equal Protection?
      • Court limits EP to race
    • Privileges or Immunities?
      • Court focused on race issues 14A was meant for, N/A here
      • P or I Clause only protects narrow range of rights related to national citizenship
        • Federal rights: assert claims, free access to seaports, pursuit of LLP, peaceably assemble, redress grievances, habeas corpus, use of waters of the U.S.
        • But – Did not explicitly hold BOR doesn’t apply to the states
          • *OG understanding of P or I seems to include BOR, court was just trying to preserve discriminatory practices in this case
          • Modern view incorporates BOR through Due Process Clause

The Charlotte lawyers at Powers Law Firm PA are dedicated to compassionate legal representation, predicated on superlative knowledge, trial skills, and conscientious advocacy.

The gift of a legal education extends beyond a fulfilling way to earn a living. Omni autem cui multum datum.

Bill Powers - Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com

Carolina Law Blog / Awards and Certifications

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together. I went to any lengths for my case because he won my trust almost immediately... J.R.
★★★★★
My daughter had a second DUI and when it all seemed hopeless, Bill was able to get the charges dropped. This is a man who is extremely knowledgeable, yet still keeps his integrity which was impressive to me. He handles himself with dignity. If you hire him, you will have the best of the best, along with his expansive intellect and wisdom about the law. Lisa
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.