<P> Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities". The seeming ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations . Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally . Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states . </P> <P> Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which has held that the clause means that a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens . In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823), the federal circuit court held that privileges and immunities in respect of which discrimination is barred include </P> <P> protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty...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; to claim the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State . </P> <P> Most other benefits were held not to be protected privileges and immunities . In Corfield the circuit court sustained a New Jersey law giving state residents the exclusive right to gather clams and oysters . </P>

What are the obligations that states have to each other