The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2 states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
I have found commentary on this that states, "A citizen of one State going to or transacting business in another is entitled in the latter State to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its citizens. The State cannot legislate against him or otherwise disfavor him. The intent was that the citizen of one state should not be an alien in another. In any state he has the protection of the government of that state, the enjoyment of life and liberty with the right to acquire and possess property, the right to pursue and obtain happiness, to institute actions in court, and generally to possess what the citizen of the State possesses. Numerous cases have arisen under this clause where States have attempted to favor their own citizens to the prejudice of the citizens of other States. Such laws are void for conflict with this clause."
From my perspective, this is relevant to my fishing experience in other states in two ways:
1. The State of Montana expressly prohibits licensed, out-of-state anglers to freely fish certain highly desirable streams on certain days of the week. This is highly discriminatory and appears to be blatantly unconstitutional.
2. Having to pay high out-of-state fishing license fees (while I understand the rationale) also is discriminatory. If the intent of this clause of the Constitution truly is that the legal citizens of one state are not to be considered aliens in another state, it follows that states should charge one fishing license fee for U.S. Citizens and not discriminate against residents of other states, based on the Constitution.
Have there been Supreme Court decisions that have allowed states to water down and, in effect, abuse the intent of this clause in the constitution? Or are these just examples of what is likely a plethora of laws that have yet to be struck down, despite their violation of the constitution. (An example of a non-fishing example of this type of law: I own a second home in another state, while maintaining Washington as my state of residence. Because I am not a resident of the state in which my second home is located, my property tax is almost double what it would be if I declared that state to be my state of residence.)
Is this just another example of the breakdown of the rule of law in this country, where we now see so many conflicting laws, selective enforcement of existing laws, etc? Any insights from those of you with a greater understanding of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and the law than I have?
I have found commentary on this that states, "A citizen of one State going to or transacting business in another is entitled in the latter State to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its citizens. The State cannot legislate against him or otherwise disfavor him. The intent was that the citizen of one state should not be an alien in another. In any state he has the protection of the government of that state, the enjoyment of life and liberty with the right to acquire and possess property, the right to pursue and obtain happiness, to institute actions in court, and generally to possess what the citizen of the State possesses. Numerous cases have arisen under this clause where States have attempted to favor their own citizens to the prejudice of the citizens of other States. Such laws are void for conflict with this clause."
From my perspective, this is relevant to my fishing experience in other states in two ways:
1. The State of Montana expressly prohibits licensed, out-of-state anglers to freely fish certain highly desirable streams on certain days of the week. This is highly discriminatory and appears to be blatantly unconstitutional.
2. Having to pay high out-of-state fishing license fees (while I understand the rationale) also is discriminatory. If the intent of this clause of the Constitution truly is that the legal citizens of one state are not to be considered aliens in another state, it follows that states should charge one fishing license fee for U.S. Citizens and not discriminate against residents of other states, based on the Constitution.
Have there been Supreme Court decisions that have allowed states to water down and, in effect, abuse the intent of this clause in the constitution? Or are these just examples of what is likely a plethora of laws that have yet to be struck down, despite their violation of the constitution. (An example of a non-fishing example of this type of law: I own a second home in another state, while maintaining Washington as my state of residence. Because I am not a resident of the state in which my second home is located, my property tax is almost double what it would be if I declared that state to be my state of residence.)
Is this just another example of the breakdown of the rule of law in this country, where we now see so many conflicting laws, selective enforcement of existing laws, etc? Any insights from those of you with a greater understanding of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and the law than I have?
.
