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

To: Sandy
Sheez? The 14th requires it? Pretty sure of yourself, aren't you?

Samuel Francis begs to differ in his article, Judicial Tyranny. He says that, "The Framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of initiating a revolution in constitutional law or of bringing the states under the constraints of the Bill of Rights. The whole Incorporation Doctrine is simply an invention of judges and justices eager to impose their own ideology, political beliefs, and personal preferences on the nation as a whole, and they have had to rely on the courts to do so because the American people have never supported or been willing to enact the measures the courts have sought to impose through their revolution."

So there! Sheesh!

148 posted on 07/12/2004 4:29:51 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
As usual, Samuel Francis is wrong:
Debate over the anti-KKK bill naturally required exposition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and none was better qualified to explain that section than its draftsman, Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):

Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:

[text of Amendments I-VIII]

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment.


150 posted on 07/12/2004 8:03:47 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | 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