Jones v Temper – more proof of state vs federal citizen status

A reader pointed out that the case of Jones v Temper explains the difference between state and federal citizens in the context of the 14th Amendment.

As stated:

“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House cases. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which will relate to state citizenship.”

A U.S. citizen is a citizen of the federal government. State citizens are not citizens of the federal government.

The Slaughter House cases involved owners of slaughter houses on Louisiana and their case against the Lousiana state govt. The ruling against these business owners stated the 14th amendment does not apply to them because they are state citizens and the 14th amendment was written to protect freed slaves who were stateless.

The court opinion in Jones v Temmer explains the state citizens lack standing to use the 14th amendment to protect them from Denver state laws.

For the reasons set forth below I conclude that: 1) Quick Pick Cabs, Inc., and Ani Ebong lack standing to bring a claim under the privileges and immunities clause; 2) Tillman lacks standing to bring the third claim for relief; 3) I decline to abstain in this case; 4) taxicab companies operating in Denver are not necessary parties under Rule 19(a); 5) plaintiffs’ first and second claims will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under the privileges and immunities clause, substantive due process and equal protection; and 6) plaintiff Tillman’s third claim will be dismissed for lack of standing and alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Because Rule 12 applies to resolve defendants’ motions, I need not address their Rule 56 arguments. Source

The reader who brought up this point also states:

The 14th Amendment uses confusing language that doesn’t match what was said on the House floor in debates for the Amendment. The solution continues to be Resurrecting our missing Article 3 “courts of the United States”.