Summary [3 of 4] of Cases Cited in Treatise, ‘The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed’

Worcester v. Georgia 1832 Nullification—Refused to recognize the authority of the Supreme Court
Bridges v. California 1941 Petition—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Lovell v. Griffin 1938 Press—Substantive Due Process—A city ordinance forbidding as a nuisance the distribution, by hand or otherwise, of literature of any kind without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager violates the Fourteenth Amendment; strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson 1931 Press—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue 1983 Press—Substantive Due Process—By creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State’s tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment
Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland 1983 Press—Substantive Due Process—The Arkansas sales tax scheme that taxes general interest magazines, but exempts newspapers and religious, professional, trade, and sports journals, violates the First Amendment’s freedom of the press guarantee
Slaughterhouse Cases 1873 Privileges & Immunites—Nullified the privileges or immunities clause
Crandall v. Nevada 1867 Privileges & Immunities— It is said to be the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, ‘to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the subtreasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.’ And quoting from the language of Chief Justice Taney in another case, it is said ‘that for all the great purposes for which the Federal government was established, we are one people, with one common country, we are all citizens of the United States’
Hicklin v. Orbeck 1978 Privileges & Immunities—Alaska Hire statute (which was enacted professedly for the purpose of reducing unemployment within the State) that requires that all Alaskan oil and gas leases, easements or right-of-way permits for oil and gas pipelines, and unitization agreements contain a requirement that qualified Alaska residents be hired in preference to nonresidents
Saenz v. Roe 1999 Privileges & Immunities—California acted in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the 1787 Constitution and in violation of the 14th Amendment when it established welfare benefits for persons who were recent arrivals in the state at a lower level than benefits given to persons established as residents for longer than one year
Ward v. Maryland 1870 Privileges & Immunities—Invalidated a state law prohibiting nonresident merchants from selling agricultural products grown or articles manufactured outside the state without first obtaining a license for a fee higher than that charged to in‐state residents
Paul v. Virginia 1869 Privileges & Immunities—It was undoubtedly the object of the Article 4 clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other states, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other states; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other states, and egress from them; it insures to them in other states the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those states in the acquisition and enjoyment of property, and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other states the equal protection of their laws
Madden v. Kentucky 1940 Privileges & Immunities—Not a limitation on taxing power. Reversed Colgate
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana 1978 Privileges & Immunities—Rejected a privileges and immunities clause challenge to Montana’s assessment of higher hunting license fees to out‐of‐state residents
Edwards v. California 1941 Privileges & Immunities—Right to travel from state to state was guaranteed by the privileges or immunities clause, but the majority invoked the commerce clause to achieve the same result
Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent Co. 1884 Privileges & Immunities—State’s annulment of a monopoly privilege upheld
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper 1985 Privileges & Immunities—States may not exclude nonresidents from admission to the practice of law
Vlandis v. Piper 1973 Privileges & Immunities—States may offer lower tuition for in‐state residents than for out‐of‐state residents; subsidized education, like the oyster harvesting at issue in Corfield, was held not to be a fundamental privilege of citizenship
Blake v. McClung 1898 Privileges & Immunities—Struck down state statute that gave priority to in‐state creditors over out‐of‐state creditors
Colgate v. Harvey 1935 Privileges & Immunities—the clause was a limitation on state taxing power, but that holding was quickly reversed in Madden v. Kentucky (1940)
Oregon v. Mitchell 1970 Privileges & Immunities—The primacy of the Privileges & Immunities Clause (Harlan)
Corfield v. Coryell 1823 Privileges & Immunities—Upheld New Jersey statute prohibited any person not a resident of the state from gathering oysters in the state’s waters as against Privileges and Immunities challenge.
Toomer v. Witsell 1948 Privileges & Immunities—Voided discriminatory license fees for out‐of‐state shrimp fishermen in South Carolina waters
In re Oliver 1948 Public trial—Notice of charges—Substantive Due Process—Announced
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963 Religion—Establishment Clause—Banned Bible reading in public schools
Everson v. Board of Education 1947 Religion—Establishment Clause—Sustantive Due Process— Announced
Illinois ex rel McCollum v. Board of Education 1948 Religion—Establishment—Substantive Due Process— Announced
Engel v. Vitale 1962 Religion—Establishment—Substantive Due Process—School prayer banned
Doremus v. Board of Education 1952 Religion—Establishment—Substantive Due Process—Upheld dismissal of declaratory judgment action to have state statute requiring Bible reading in schools declared unconstitutional
Cantwell v. Connecticut 1940 Religion—Free Exercise—Announced
Hamilton v. Regents 1934 Religion—Free Exercise—Substantive Due Process—Announced
McDonald v. Chicago 2010 Right to Keep and Bear Arms— Substantive Due Process—Announced
Presser v. Illinois 1886 Right to Keep and Bear Arms—Substantive Due Process—Limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security
United States v. Cruikshank 1875 Right to Keep and Bear Arms—Substantive Due Process—Rejected The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police, not surrendered or restrained by the Constituton of the United States
Aptheker v. Secretary of State 1964 Rights, Unenumerated Affirmed unwritten right to travel abroad
United Public Workers v. Mitchell 1947 Rights, Unenumerated—The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the 9th and 10th Amendments must fail. However, since the 10th Amendment clearly limits the exercise of federal power to powers delegated by the Constitution, this interpretation seems to render the 9th Amendment without any practical function
Mapp v. Ohio 1961 Search and seizure—Substantive Due Process Substantive Due Process—Announced
Rochin v. California 1952 Search and Seizure—Substantive Due Process—Body cavity searches invasion of fundamental rights
Wolf v. Colorado 1949 Search and Seizure—Substantive Due Process—Rejected
United States v. Booth 1855 See Ableman v. Booth
Bradley v. Fisher 1871 See Antoine v. Byers & Anderson
Perry v. United States 1935 See Gold Clause Cases
Parker v. Davis 1871 See Legal Tender Cases

Adamson v. California

1947 Self-Incrimination—Prosecutor’s calling jury’s attention to defendant’s refusal to testify did not violate 5th ban on self‐incrimination
Malloy v. Hogan 1964 Self-incrimination—Substantive Due Process Substantive Due Process—Announced
Griffin v. California 1965 Self-incrimination—Substantive Due Process Substantive Due Process—Announced
Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Self-incrimination—Substantive Due Process—States prohibited from using incriminating confessions obtained without having first advised the defendant of a right to a lawyer and a right to remain silent
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 1952 Separation of Powers—War Power—Rejected the argument that President Harry S. Truman had inherent constitutional authority to issue an executive order seizing private steel mills
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States 1935 Separation of Powers—Appointments and Removals—Case arose under a statute providing that members of the Federal Trade Commission could be removed from their seven‐year terms of office only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. President Roosevelt sought to remove Humphrey from office not on any of the statutory grounds but on the basis of Myers. A unanimous Court found the removal invalid
Morrison v. Olsen 1988 Separation of Powers—Appointments and Removals—In providing for special counsel, Congress had not violated separation of powers principles because under the act the president can at any time remove from office an independent counsel—but only for good cause.
Myers v. United States 1926 Separation of Powers—Appointments and Removals—Requirement of senatorial consent for removal was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of the executive power to the president and also with his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed
Buckley v. Valeo 1976 Separation of Powers—Congress has no power to appoint executive officers
Bowsher v. Synar 1986 Separation of Powers—Congress has no power to remove exceutive offices.
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 1935 Separation of Powers—Congressional delegation of power to President held unconstitutional. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1934 authorized the president to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of petroleum produced in excess of quotas fixed by the states
U.S. Senate v. Federal Trade Commission 1983 Separation of Powers—Extended the Chadha principle to a veto that is effective upon approval by both houses of Congress.
Advertisements
Published in: on October 22, 2013 at 9:34 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/summary-3-of-4/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: