Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
None of these comments gets to what I believe to be the point.

I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.

Obviously the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well.

Funny this stuff comes from a liberal court when it has been the liberal courts that applied federal laws to the states (equal opportunity, school busing, etc.) to bring about their version of life in these United States.

But now federal courts have no say in the matter of the 2nd Amendment?

6 posted on 06/05/2009 6:38:12 AM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: old curmudgeon

“None of these comments gets to what I believe to be the point.

I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.”

The comment about “incorporation” gets to the point you raise exactly. That’s what it means, that the states have been incorporated into the Bill of Rights by the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th amendment. I still consider it to be BS, because neither equal protection nor due process imply anything of the sort. All they require is that everyone within a state be governed by the same laws and same legal processes, or if they are discriminated against it is in a fair and rational manner and not based on race, etc.

Anyway, one of the things you mention, changing contracts at whim, is specifically denied to the states in Article One. We call it “the contract clause”. It says, “No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” So you see, the Constitution often tells the states not to do stuff. Which is what they’re doing with the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.

The first amendment is a different matter. States ought not to be constrained by the amendments which refer to the federal government, like, you know, when it comes out and says “Congress shall make no law...” infringing upon so and so rights. If we don’t want state governments to restrict speech or establish a religion, we should either amend the Constitution or write that into state constitutions (they have ‘em too, darn it!)


7 posted on 06/05/2009 6:55:56 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: old curmudgeon

I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates. The Constitution obviously applied to state and local governments then, to say that it doesn’t apply now flies in the face of all reason!


8 posted on 06/05/2009 7:24:33 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson