It was only years after passage of the 14th Amendment that parts of the Bill of Rights began to be applied to the states.
The 14th Amendment was intended to render Barron v. Baltimore void, to overrule it. The Supreme Court proceeded almost immediately to pretend that the Amendment meant something other than what was intended by its authors. Years later, instead of fixing the bullshit precedents and restoring the Privileges or Immunities Clause to its rightful place as the clause intended to incorporate amendments 1-8, the Supreme Court invented selective incorporation via substantive due process, allowing itself to pick and choose which rights would get incorporated. That's why we're where we are today, far from what was intended by the authors of the 14th, with some rights incorporated and some not.
CalRepublican wrote:
In Barron v. Baltimore, decided in 1833, Chief Justice Marshall held that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to state and local governments. It was only years after passage of the 14th Amendment that parts of the Bill of Rights began to be applied to the states.
______________________________________
The 14th Amendment was intended to render Barron v. Baltimore void, to overrule it.
The Supreme Court proceeded almost immediately to pretend that the Amendment meant something other than what was intended by its authors.
-Sandy-
______________________________________
The southern States abusing the BOR's were adamant. They were determined to ignore the 14th, so the USSC, and the country, went along with Jim Crow. Restoration of the Union was supposedly more important than the individual rights of newly freed slaves.
Now we find the 'states rights' crowd [this time allied with socialists] again saying that ~some~ individual rights must be ignored for the good of society & our union. -- That we must have State laws that ban evil objects, and restrict sinful behaviors.
Nothing ever changes but the faces of the prohibitionists.