Talk:Corfield v. Coryell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Changed last paragraph from:
This passage was quoted on multiple occasions by the sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, during congressional debates on the Amendment, as giving an indication of what was meant by the phrase "privileges and immunities" as it is used in Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is often cited by those who advocate a broader reading of the Fourteenth Amendment "privileges and immunities" clause than the Supreme Court gave in Slaughterhouse Cases.
This was very wrong. First of all, John Bingham was not the amendment's sponsor. Stevens and Howard were. Second, Bingham did not cite it on multiple occasions, and whenever he did, it was as an example of an incorrect reading of the phrase. Bingham certainly did not agree with Justice Washington's assessment. See discussion in the Fourteenth Amendment article for a citation of a speech in which Bingham stated that the phrase "privileges or immunities" encompassed all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Finally, where Washington's reading of the phrase was cited (by Howard when introducing the Fourteenth Amendment), it was cited as a touchstone from which the Congress could postulate what the judicial reading of the term would be. Additionally, when Howard cited Washington's evaluation, he suggested that the guarantees of the first eight amendments should be added.
