Talk:Slaughter-House Cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Current interpretation of the Fourteenth
Shouldn't the article mention somewhere that the holding in Slaughter-house cases has been reversed in practice, if not explicitly, and that no one could expect success today in federal court arguing a different set of rights pertinent to "state" as opposed ot "national" citizenship? Rlquall 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conspiracy Theory Comment Adjustment and Rebuttment Removal
I removed the following from the end of this article:
- "This is because it is one of the first decisions in which the court's opinion discussed a form of dual citizenship: state citizenship and U.S. citizenship.
- The holding that this is the first time the court recognized a distinction between state citizenship and federal citizenship is not completely true. In Dred Scott v. Sanford the court held that that a State may declare a person a citizen for their own purposes, however they do not become a US citizen by virtue of state citizenship. This holding was necessary to deny Scott the ability to bring action in federal courts. By failing to be a citizen he could not properly maintain a diversity action for trespass."
It is not proper to argue the question in the article itself as it will only serve to confuse the reader. I clarified the conspiracy theory comment by stating that it was one of the first cases following the ratification of the 14th Amendment that made it noteworthy. Any mention of cases prior to 1870 are more aptly placed in an article relating to the relevant clause of the amendment which overruled the citizenship holdings in cases such as Scott v. Sanford. Skyler1534 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)