[Viva Le Dissention]

This clause is basicall dead, but the way, and was all-but forgotten until Justice Thomas brought it out of the basement in a dissent in Saenz v. Roe in 1999.

His dissent contains the best analysis of the clause as anything that has been published in the last, say, 200 years.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZD1.html

[Viva Le Dissention]

wow, more typos than I could count there. I meant to say the clause was basically dead, by the way.

[FreeTally]

Thanks for the link.

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

He had me going until then. I have to tune someone out when they say "good of the whole". Sorry, Thomas is just another "Whatever those who are in power say is good for you, goes" types. All the other "rights" and "liberties" he speaks of are negated by "good for the whole".