Talk:Slaughter-House Cases

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)

I agree that there should be some mention of the evolution of the interpretations since the Slaughter-House Cases.MikeNM (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is no discussion of how the P&I clause of the 14th amendment is differentiated from the P&I clause of Art. IV, i.e. what is different from the P&I in the 14th and the fundamental freedoms which are "too tedious to enumerate" from Art. IV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.110.31 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the word "white" serve any purpose but to create bias?

The entry states that "He now argued for a new, broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that would allow white butchers to "sustain their lives through labor." What is the relevance of the race of the butchers in this case? It appears to me that it just creates bias against John Campbell. I think the point may have been to denote some sense of irony about the way he argued against reconstruction and still argued to broaden the 14th Amendment in this case. I don't, however, believe that the use of race in this case is the correct way of going about it. Its inclusion seems to be implying knowledge of Campbell's "real" intentions. Any comments? MikeNM (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I came to this talk page to see if anyone else noticed this. Either "white" should be removed or its relevance should be made clear. Anon, Wed Feb 25 18:58:02 EST 2009

No, I think it's important. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed in the wake of the Civil War to prevent Southern states from passing laws that would disadvantage newly freed slaves. But since that time, the 14th amendment has grown far beyond its original significance and protects rights of many different groups, not just blacks. The language of the due process and equal protection clauses isn't racially limited, and I think it's important to note that smart lawyers, such as Campbell, were able to argue that this language protected groups other than just freed slaves. That's why "white" is significant--you'd think that the first big 14th amendment case would involve black plaintiffs, but it doesn't. I added a sentence to this effect. Motorneuron (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit confusing though, as that would imply the decision would only benefit white butchers as well as black butchers. --kizzle (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mosquitoes don't feast on dead animal tissue....factual errors abound.

The mosquito that is the principle carrier of yellow fever, Aedes aegypti, is not a scavenger, requiring blood meals of live red blood cells, and therefore does not feed on dead animal tissue. Furthermore, the concept of mosquitoes being the vector for yellow fever was not discovered until 1900 by Walter Reed, MD. The paragraph that states that mosquitoes feasting on offal were the cause of yellow fever is not only factually incorrect, but is therefore also anachronistic with respect to this 1873 SCOTUS case. (They simply wouldn't have known this, even if it were true.) I will let someone else rewrite this paragraph, as I lack the desire to do so due to my unwillingness to be flamed and edit-warred by other "editors". And we wonder why the numbers of Wikipedia editors are declining......216.137.246.141 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is only adult mosquitoes that need fresh blood. Their larvae are filter feeders, and thus they may well eat the bacteria that are fed in turn by "offal".

It doesn't warrant a "B" quality rating with glaring factual errors.

The science is wrong....see section above. This article needs a bit of a rewrite and should be downgraded on the quality scale until that happens. 216.137.246.141 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Only Adult mosquitos require a blood diet. Larval mosquitoes are filter feeders eating any microscopic life in the stagnant water they live in. Their diet thus includes bacteria feeding on "offal" Don Seib 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)