Angry New Yorker |
|
|
Semi-Daily Rants from New York City's Angry Man
"As I know more of mankind I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly."
- Dr. Samuel Johnson, Boswell, Life of Johnson, Sept. 1783
Archives
Public Interest National Interest National Review New Criterion Commentary First Things The New Atlantis Foreign Affairs Am. Enterprise Hudson Review Policy Review OpinionJournal-WSJ City Journal American Prowler NY Observer News Washington Post Wall Street Journal C.S.Monitor New York Times Washington Times Financial Times Int'l Hrld-Trb Fox News NY Sun Blogs Tacitus Instapundit The Diplomad Right Wing News Tim Blair Belmont Club Little Green Footballs Powerline Iraq Related Blogs Command Post - Iraq IRAQ NOW... Jason Van S. Sgt. Stryker Digital WarFighter Boots on Ground Healing Iraq U.S.S. Clueless Iraq The Model/a> Iraq & Iraqi's Iraq at a Glance Geopolitics/Defense DefenseLink Defend America Jane's Stratfor Global Security Strategy Page DefenseTech Ctr. for Security Policy Economics/Finance Poor and Stupid Institutional Economics The Capital Spectator The Knowledge Problem Economic Principals The Chicago School SSRN Misc. Federalist Society FindArticles Law Adams Drafting How Appealing The Volokh Conspiracy Cyberspace Lawyer Blog Oyez JOLT Digest Founders' Constitution Eric Goldman's Tech & Mktng Law Blog ScotusWiki |
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
My commentary? Why should there be a rule that you have to live in the city? First, who cares where you live as long as you do a good job? Second, I don't know how this isn't against the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, sec. 2, cl. 1, privileges and immunities clause, which states "[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. " So, if you can't hold a job in New York city because you live in New Jersey, ipso facto aren't you *not* entitled to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens in New York? Although the Supreme Court has since the 1823 decision of Corfield v. Coryell, moved away from what appears to be a plain facial meaning of the P&I clause, in the 1823 decision Justice Washington stated that the Article IV privileges and immunities clause provided: ''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 must justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; . . . .'' 6 Fed. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (C.C.E.D. Pa., 1823). See also, Hicklin, v. Orbeck, (noting the clause "does not preclude disparity of treatment in the many situations where there are perfectly valid independent reasons for it," it "does bar discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States."). Case closed? I think it should be... CITY PROBES WORKERS BREAKING 'HOME' RULE By CLEMENTE LISI, New York Post February 4, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE The city has launched an investigation into ferry workers and thousands of other Department of Transportation employees to determine if they are violating a law that requires them to live in the five boroughs, The Post has learned. The DOT has handed out to workers an eight-page questionnaire, asking for their current addresses and for additional information that verifies where they live. Those who live outside the city must either move or lose their jobs. [full article here.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
