American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Amendment XV [1870][1]: “The rights of citizens of the US to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the US or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Not practically in force until the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

Rt of interstate mobility protected by art 4, sec 2 commerce clause, Crandall case p.460, 14^th A

1. 
   Edwards v. CA p. 460: strikes down law stopping Americans from moving from dust bowls to CA. Had targeted indigent non-residents. Concurrence decided under P & I clause.
   
2. 
   Shapiro v. Thompson: relied on equal protection clause to invalidate law that denied welfare benefits to new state residents until they had reside in the state for a year. Applied strict scrutiny b/c fund interest in interstate mobility. Launched line of decisions striking down some but not all durational residency requirements for state benefits.
   
3. 
   Extended in Dunn to voting (residency req struck down using strict scrutiny) & Maricopa County to medical care (residency req struck down for free non-ER medical or hospital care to indigents)
   
4. 
   Saenz v. Roe: p. 462: Congressional statute allowed law that set welfare in new state for 1^st year at the amt receiving in prior state but SC overturned based on equal protection clause (so Congress c/n override). Impedes rt to travel and rt of newly arrived citizen to have same P & I as other citizens of same state. Used strict scrutiny.
   

Incorporation

Total	Selective Incorporation
1-9, but no more, Black	Palko, Cardozo: Could a system be just without this right?	Duncan, White: Given Anglo-American historical conception of justice, is this right essential?	Same as Duncan, Harlan: but only incorporate to extent required by fair purpose of system

1.