The first cases to do this were the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, which declared that the Privileges and immunities of citizens guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are those which they possess as citizens of the United States and not those which they enjoy by virtue of state citizenship. This decision meant that those privileges and immunities which heretofore rested, namely, upon the states.” (Flack 7) This lead to some controversy because it “marked the practical overthrow of the Congressional ideal for the Fourteenth Amendment within seven years after its victorious adoption…and reduced the bill of rights of section 1 to distant potentialities.” (Atherton 66-67) Along with this was the Gitlow Vs. New York, which stated that “freedoms of speech and the press were fundamental rights that were protected under the due process clause.” (Curtis 71) This interpretation was used to “protect other rights against state infringement.” (Atherton
The first cases to do this were the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, which declared that the Privileges and immunities of citizens guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are those which they possess as citizens of the United States and not those which they enjoy by virtue of state citizenship. This decision meant that those privileges and immunities which heretofore rested, namely, upon the states.” (Flack 7) This lead to some controversy because it “marked the practical overthrow of the Congressional ideal for the Fourteenth Amendment within seven years after its victorious adoption…and reduced the bill of rights of section 1 to distant potentialities.” (Atherton 66-67) Along with this was the Gitlow Vs. New York, which stated that “freedoms of speech and the press were fundamental rights that were protected under the due process clause.” (Curtis 71) This interpretation was used to “protect other rights against state infringement.” (Atherton