Replies

It is is irrefutable that, in 1792, no one believed that the Bill of Rights was binding on the states...

Er... yeah. Right.

"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240

"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112

Finally...

So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution, or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding."

"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."

It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed, that the different State Constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States. Of what avail will the Constitutions of the respective States be to preserve the rights of its citizens? Should they be pled, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the General or State governments, are bound by oath to support it. No privilege, reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the State governments, can limit the power granted by this, or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it. It stands, therefore, on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself, without any reference to any other. And hence it was of the highest importance, that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.

This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but alt treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.

-Brutus. Antifederalist #84

So yeah... despite your buying into the 20th century Big Lie of incorperation due to the FedGov needing to restate the above sentiments in the 1th Amendment, does your side of the argument no service. We have inalienable Rights. As humans. As US citizens. No one, not State and certainly not Local, have the power to strip us of those basic Rights.

Arguing otherwise only puts you on the side of the tyrants and dictator wanna-be's currently trying to destroy this country from the inside out.

Your quotes from Jefferson don't even mention the Constitution and certainly provide no evidence as to whether he believed the Bill of Rights was applicable to the states and the quote from the Anti-Federalist (1) was written before the Constitution itself was ratified (and therefore obviously before the Bill of Rights was ratified) and (2) only shows that the Anti-Federalists believed that there was a need for a Bill of Rights that would apply to the new federal government because its powers were (or could become) more expansive than the Federalists were acknowledging. There is nothing that suggests that Brutus (or George Mason, Patrick Henry or any of the leading Anti-Federalists) ever wanted to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states and certainly none of the quotes provides any opinion on the scope of the Bill of Rights.

Is there any more clear proof that those who ratified the Bill of Rights did not want it to apply to the states than the fact that Madison originally proposed, as part of the Bill of Rights, an Amendment that would read:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases

Madison called it the most valuable of the proposed amendments...yet it was defeated in the Senate because the Senators did not want to make those prohibitions applicable to the states. Madison when he introduced it...made a speech explaining why he was making those specific prohibitions applicable to the states...pretty hard to claim then that the rest of the amendments also applied to the states...particularly when the Senate clearly rejected the prohibitions on the states

Moreover, as Marshall wrote in the Barron case, to understand why the Bill of Rights could never apply to the states and why the state legislatures and Senators would never have permitted it, you must know the "universally understood" (Marshall's words) historical background of the Bill of Rights. In every state convention debating ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists expressed fears about the new, distant, powerful, central government that was being created. Most finally supported the Constitution...but only because the Federalists, like Madison, promised to consider a Bill of Rights soon after ratification. Madison did, obviously, quickly propose the Bill of Rights because, he wrote, states' rights advocates...the Anti-Federalists might have called a second constitutional convention to replace the new Constitution. The Bill of Rights that Anti-Federalists wanted was a Bill of Rights to limit the federal government...and not just for the sake of individual liberty, which many Americans mistakenly believe today...but as much to protect the power of the states. In essence that is the point that your Anti-Federalist 84 is making. It is incomprehensible that Madison would have risked the Constitution by trying to slip major fundamental new restrictions on states into the Bill of Rights. Nor would the Anti-Federalists in Congress or in states have permitted it. Madison, when he proposed the Bill of Rights, proposed a small number of additional restrictions on states- and clearly indicated what he was doing...but even that was rejected.

Believe me....I'm not trying to destroy the country...long term...your liberties have more to fear from an omnipotent centralized federal government than from a decentralized federalist system