ABSTRACT
It has been only a minority of dissenting Justices of the Supreme Court who have taken a broad view of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority have consistently rebuffed the effort to include among the privileges and immunities of American citizens the fundamental or broad rights and freedoms, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The basic conflict between the two schools of thought in the Supreme Court is not, one suspects, over the question as to what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to accomplish by the use of the terms "liberty" and "due process". In nearly fifty cases parties before the Supreme Court have tried to get the Court to give some meaning to and put some life into the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but to no avail. The clause has been consistently construed as protecting only those interests that grow out of relations between citizen and the National Government.
