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

To: Looking for Diogenes
When drafted the First Amendment did not apply to states. The Consitution is open to amendment. The 14th Amendment extended the civil liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights to states.

The 14th Amendment was never meant to incorporate the "establishment clause". Evidence of that can be found in the failure of the Blaine Amendment to pass Congress some 14 times. Despite the failure of the Blaine Amendment applying the BOR's to the states, each and every state managed all by their little ole selves to amend their state Constitutions so as to disestablish state religions not to mention that it wasn't properly ratified. Having said that, there are several schools of thought as to what exactly the 14th incorporstes and what it doesn't. I'll leave you to figure out what they are.

Duh.

Whoops, there goes your link.

278 posted on 11/11/2003 3:34:33 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07
Having said that, there are several schools of thought as to what exactly the 14th incorporstes and what it doesn't.

There's the correct interpretation and the "eccentric" interpetation. I'm guessing you're siding with the eccentric interpetation.

Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court -- a period of seventy years -- the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by forty-three judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States. They did not find that the Fourteenth Amendment, concerned as it was with matters fundamental to the pursuit of justice, fastened upon the States procedural arrangements which, in the language of Mr. Justice Cardozo, only those who are "narrow or provincial" would deem essential to "a fair and enlightened system of justice." Palko v. Connecticut. To suggest that it is inconsistent with a truly free society to begin prosecutions without an indictment, to try petty civil cases without the paraphernalia of a common law jury, to take into consideration that one who has full opportunity to make a defense remains silent is, in de Tocqueville's phrase, to confound the familiar with the necessary.
Justice Frankfurter, concurring

Adamson vs California 1947


297 posted on 11/11/2003 3:55:00 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | 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