Isabella Carter
The topic of 'free inhabitants' is addressed in Article IV, also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause, of the US Constitution. This clause states that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The inclusion of this clause was influenced by issues related to slavery and state rights during the Constitutional Convention. While the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the concept of 'free inhabitants' originated in Article 4 of the latter, which stated that free inhabitants of each of these states...shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. This provision aimed to secure mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states, ensuring free movement and equal privileges for all free citizens.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Privileges and Immunities Clause |
| Location | U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 |
| Alternative Name | Comity Clause |
| Purpose | To prevent states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner |
| Rights | Right to travel through and reside in states, right to claim benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, right of access to the courts, right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay |
| Exclusions | Does not apply to corporations, only citizens |
| Historical Context | Derived from the Articles of Confederation, which predate the Constitution |
| Interpretations | Madison: clause dictates how a state treats non-citizens, not its own citizens; Hamilton: the basis of the union; Thurgood Marshall: the 1787 Constitution was defective from the start |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Privileges and Immunities Clause
James Madison discussed this provision of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist No. 42, writing that those who come under the denomination of "free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter". Madison did not believe that this clause dictated how a state must treat its own citizens. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, wrote in Federalist No. 80 that the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the proposed federal Constitution was "the basis of the union".
Florida Constitution: Review Frequency Explained
You may want to see also
Interstate travel rights
The right to interstate travel is considered a fundamental right in the United States. While it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted several constitutional provisions to establish this right. The Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) of the U.S. Constitution is one such provision. This clause prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner and guarantees that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of other states.
The Framers of the Constitution omitted the phrase "free ingress and regress," which was explicitly mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, but they retained the general guarantee of "privileges and immunities." Commentators assume that the omission was due to redundancy rather than an intention to remove the right. The right to interstate travel is also associated with the Comity Clause, which states that the ""free inhabitants of each of these states [...] shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states."
The Supreme Court views the right to travel as essential to the unity of the United States. This right encompasses the right of citizens to move freely between states, as well as the right to reside in states, access courts, purchase and hold property, and be exempt from higher taxes than state residents. The right to interstate travel has been recognised in various court cases, including Crandall v. Nevada, Shapiro v. Thompson, Dunn v. Blumstein, and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County.
Despite the recognition of the right to interstate travel, there have been instances where durational residency requirements have created distinctions between residents based on the length of their residency. In Zobel v. Williams, the Court ruled against a law that distributed dividends from oil deposits based on the number of years of residency, as it lacked a permissible purpose and failed the rational basis test. Similarly, in Shapiro v. Thompson, the Court voided durational residency requirements for welfare assistance, emphasising that any classification based on residency must promote a compelling governmental interest.
Declaration vs Constitution: Which Came First?
You may want to see also
Fugitive Slave Clause
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. It states that:
> No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
In other words, the clause gave slaveholders the right to reclaim their slaves if they escaped to another state. This was also true for apprentices and indentured servants. The clause was adopted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which, while abolishing slavery in the Territory, provided for the return of fugitive slaves.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was largely nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, except as punishment for criminal acts. However, it is still mentioned in the Constitution of the Confederate States, which specifies African Americans as the subjects of slavery.
The interpretation and enforcement of the clause caused much debate, with many legal scholars arguing that its vague wording was a political compromise that avoided overtly validating slavery at a federal level. The broad language of the clause enabled the kidnapping of free African Americans, who were then illegally enslaved. This led to Northern resistance to the clause in the 19th century, with several Northern states enacting "personal liberty laws" to protect their Black residents.
Understanding the Constitutional Issue in Re Gault
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Personal liberty laws
The Personal Liberty Laws were a series of legislative acts implemented in the United States between 1780 and the beginning of the Civil War. These laws were enacted by several Northern states to counter the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 and protect the rights of African Americans and free blacks. The Fugitive Slave Laws allowed slave owners to reclaim previously freed slaves and seize alleged escaped slaves with little to no proof of ownership, often resulting in freedmen being taken back into slavery due to rigged courts and injustice.
The Personal Liberty Laws sought to protect African Americans from kidnapping and being claimed as fugitive slaves. These laws defined kidnapping as removing any person from the state and forbade state officers from participating in the enforcement of federal fugitive slave reclamation, including not using state jails in the process. States with personal liberty laws included Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
The laws also allowed jury trials for escaped slaves, which was not provided for in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Indiana (1824), Connecticut (1828), Vermont (1840), and New York (1840) enacted laws making jury trials for escaped slaves possible and provided them with attorneys. After 1842, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was a federal function, some Northern state governments passed laws forbidding state authorities from cooperating in the capture and return of fugitives.
The Personal Liberty Laws were a direct response to the Fugitive Slave Laws and were designed to make the legal system more fair and just for all people, including escaped slaves and free blacks. These laws also sought to protect the rights of those who did not want to turn in escaped slaves, as the Fugitive Slave Laws placed heavy fines and penalties on those who helped escaped slaves or obstructed slave owners' attempts to retake them. The enactment of these laws by Northern states was one of the many assaults on states' rights cited as a justification for secession by South Carolina in 1860.
Constitution's Impact: Citizen Participation Enhanced or Hindered?
You may want to see also
Article IV, Section 2 —also known as Article 4 Free Inhabitant or Article 4
Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the Comity Clause, plays a crucial role in fostering unity and harmony among the diverse states of the union. The clause is designed "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states."
Under this article, the free inhabitants of each state, excluding paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, are entitled to the privileges and immunities of free citizens in all states. This provision ensures that individuals are not treated as foreigners when travelling between states and guarantees their freedom of movement, or "ingress and regress."
The clause also upholds the rights of citizens in one state to enjoy the same privileges and immunities in any other state. This includes the right to travel, reside, and own property in other states, as well as access to courts and protection from higher taxes than state residents. The Privileges and Immunities Clause has been interpreted to apply to territories like Puerto Rico, where US citizens are entitled to the same rights and protections as they would in a state of the Union.
However, it is important to note that Article IV, Section 2 does not dictate how a state must treat its own citizens. Historically, there has been tension between the interpretation of this clause and racist policies, particularly regarding the legal status and rights of free black individuals in the South and West. Despite the protections afforded by the clause, authorities have denied the citizenship and equal rights of free black Americans, highlighting the complex and ongoing struggle for racial equality in the United States.
Electoral College: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Privileges and Immunities Clause is found in Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution. It states that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens in the several states. This clause prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner and guarantees the right to interstate travel.
The term "free inhabitant" is a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which predate the US Constitution. It refers to the free inhabitants of each of these states who are entitled to the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. This means that a person from one state is not considered a foreigner in another state and is granted certain privileges, such as the freedom of ingress and regress, and the privileges of trade and commerce.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause in the US Constitution is based on a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation. While the framers of the Constitution omitted the reference to "free ingress and regress", they retained the general guarantee of "privileges and immunities". This was done to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in the union.
