ACTUALLY, NO, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER THIS CLAUSE -- AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SAENZ ESSENTIALLY HOLDS THAT THE THIRD COMPONENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE -- THE RIGHT TO MIGRATE -- IS ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES PROTECTED BY THE CLAUSE. THUS, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT DECISION, ANY INFRINGEMENT ON THIS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS WITH RESPECT TO, WILL BE SUBJECTED TO STRICT SCRUTINY. THAT IS, THE "RIGHT" ON WHICH THE STATE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NEW RESIDENTS NEED NOT BE "FUNDAMENTAL" IN ANY SENSE.
QUESTION: I am unclear what test we apply to find out whether the right is "fundamental". Is it the same fundamental test we used for incorporation or something totally different?
AGAIN, I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY SUCH INQUIRY. THERE IS UNDER ART. IV, BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
QUESTION: Does the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment only deal with the 3rd right to travel - the right to migrate?
PROBABLY. PERHAPS IT ALSO PROTECTS THE FIRST COMPONENT -- THE RIGHT TO PHYSICAL MOVEMENT ACROSS STATE BORDERS -- BUT THE COURT HAS NOT CLEARLY SO HELD.
QUESTION: For example, let's say I, a California resident, went on vacation in Nevada. Under Art IV, Sec 2's privileges and immunities I would be able to enjoy the same privileges as a resident of Nevada, with some exceptions (i.e. - voting). However, if I established residence in Nevada, then I would be protected not under Art IV, Sec 2, but under the 14th Amendment. Is that correct?
YOU GOT IT. AND IN A CASE LIKE PROBLEM 6, IT IS SORT OF UNCLEAR WHICH OF THESE TWO PROTECTIONS APPLIES. BUT WE KNOW THAT IT CANNOT BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME -- YOU ARE EITHER A NEW RESIDENT OF NEVADA, OR YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT VISITING.