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

To: CalRepublican
"A strong argument can be made that, even after the 14th Amendment, the Constitution should not be interepreted to incorporate the 1st Amendment and apply it to the states."

Or any amendment in the BOR for that matter.

"Rights" are incorporated because the USSC woke up one morning and decided that some particular right is so fundamental to "liberty" that the state must also protect it. What a crock. If the state felt that way, it would have "incorporated" that right into the state constitution.

Many did, and actually provided more protection than federal laws.

Talk about an activist court. And the icing on the "we know better than the states" cake was that not only did the court force the states to protect that right, it also defined that right. For example, "free speech" = nude dancing. Why? Because the USSC says so, that's why. Result? All states must allow it.

83 posted on 07/11/2004 3:16:08 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
'Amendments to the US Constitution don't apply to the States of the United States', Bumpkin.


How insane can one man get paulsen?
85 posted on 07/11/2004 3:29:46 PM PDT by tpaine (A stupid person causes losses to another while himself deriving no gain, or even incurring loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | 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