Replies

Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.

I've read that argument, but it just doesn't make sense. Clearly the Founders anticipated the states to be bound by the Consitution - if rights can be curtailed by government in any form, they aren't rights.

Then there was the awareness that moving from a decentralized government in the form of the Articles of Confederation to a centralized on under the Constitution meant that the states would be subject to a measure of Federal control, which was why many state leaders (like Governor Clinton in New York) were so vehemently opposed to its ratification.

You can't seriously believe that the Founders intended states to be able to hold persons without trial, or be able to quarter troops in private homes without the owner's consent, or ban gun ownership. That just doesn't make sense - such freedoms are worthless unless the states are held to the same standards. Same for the First Amendment - it's worthless if the states are not bound by its guidelines.

Now, why is it that some states had laws on the books that were specificially un-Constitutional? I believe the answer is simple - the fragile experiment was too precious to let die, so some violations had to be ignored. The Founders were bold men capable of bold action but also very familiar with the concept of "small steps" when necessary. If ignoring a couple of laws on state books was what they needed to do, they were willing to do it. That part's just my opinion.