Replies

I see the first part, the devils all around you versus the far-away arch-fiends. But I don't quite see the second part.

... the point of making the Bill of Rights binding upon all state actors, at every level. "Inalienable" rights that can be violated and are unrecognized by the very people you are most likely to need their protections against are, as a practical matter, worthless.

I do see that California, big enough to be its own country, must have had a lousy set of founders if they haven't constitutionalized that a person's means of self-protection are inviolable. But what if I live in a state that has had more liberty-minded founders? Say it has an even more sharply drawn BOR than the US, what good would incorporation be to the folks in my state?

Incorporation of the BOR can only add to your de jure liberties, not take them away. Of course, when the Federal Courts misinterpret the law in such a way that they "abridge freedom of religion" in the name of protecting it, then the de facto result is to violate individual liberty. I suspect this is what bothers you. But guess what: that sort of danger will always exist, no matter what any Constitution says, or what supposed precedent may have been established by previous court decisions.

Say it has an even more sharply drawn BOR than the US, what good would incorporation be to the folks in my state?

None, but in that case, it doesn't do any harm, either. The long-standing doctrine is that the Constitution as interpreted by the courts is understood to provide a minimum level of rights-protection - if states want to go farther than that, they can. The First Amendment is not the end of free-speech rights-protections, but merely the beginning, the bare minumum. Such was the reasoning in Pruneyard - you did look up the Pruneyard case, right? ;)

G_RE wrote:
The next time you have to stand in line for two hours at the DMV, remember that it's not Congress, generally speaking, who's making you waste your valuable time like that.
And that's sort of the point of making the Bill of Rights binding upon all state actors, at every level.
"Inalienable" rights that can be violated and are unrecognized by the very people you are most likely to need their protections against are, as a practical matter, worthless.
Ask tpaine - he'll be happy to tell you how your "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms is entirely "alienable" if you happen to live in California, or New York City, or Washington DC, or a host of other places.
And an "inalienable" right that you can't actually exercise is purely a theoretical construct - it no longer has any practical relevance to your life or the way you live it.
31 by general_re

NutCrackerBoy wrote:
I see the first part, the devils all around you versus the far-away arch-fiends. But I don't quite see the second part.

Neat little "arch-fiends" tar baby. Congrats.

I do see that California, big enough to be its own country, must have had a lousy set of founders if they haven't constitutionalized that a person's means of self-protection are inviolable.
But what if I live in a state that has had more liberty-minded founders? Say it has an even more sharply drawn BOR than the US, what good would incorporation be to the folks in my state?

"What if" indeed?

Do you really have a problem understanding the generals point of "making the Bill of Rights binding upon all state actors, at every level"?

As he said:
" --- "Inalienable" rights that can be violated and are unrecognized by the very people you are most likely to need their protections against are, as a practical matter, worthless."
What is that you find it difficult to "see"?

~Why~ is it you find it so difficult to support compliance at the state/local level with our BOR's?