Replies

I wrote this for another purpose......and hopefully it will clarify the issue. Here's a snip-it:

"...The Supreme Court, specifically Justice Black, in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), said the following: “My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment [Privileges and Immunities Clause], an the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment’s first section, separately, and as a whole, were intended to accomplish was to the make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.”

Ineloquently phrased but well-meaning, Justice Black’s “total incorporation” theory has never commanded a majority of the Court. A string of cases, spanning from 1897 through 1971, have selectively incorporated some of the first eight amendments via the 14th Amendment. As of this writing, only the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of a grand jury indictment, and the Seventh Amendment, have not been incorporated. As a result, according to the view of the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states....."

What you've written about Justice Black and Nationalization of the BoR is true. Regardless however of the fact whether we accept the "complete incorporation doctrine" or the "selective incororation doctrine" prior to the adoption of the XIV Amendment the first Eight Amendments undoubtely applied only to the federal government. :-)

As of this writing, only the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of a grand jury indictment, and the Seventh Amendment, have not been incorporated.

Not entirely true. The Fifth Amendment’s requirement of a grand jury indictment applies to the states but only when a person could be sentenced to a significant time in prison (Duncan v. Louisiana). Also the extension of Sixth Amendment's implicit guarantee that convictions must be obtained only from unanimous twelve-member juries was explicitly rejected by the SCOTUS in Burch v. Louisaina.

The DOI is the definitive statement documenting the reasons for the founding the United States. Disgarding it in favor of judicial interpretations by various courts is not something that I will favor. At all.

The federalist and anti federalist papers have no ability to trump the plain text of the US Constitution for reasons which should be obvious to all. They were never ratifed as the Law of the Land. In contrast the DOI has at it's bottom the signatures of the founding fathers of this nation.

Courts can no more grant rights than the state can. Your position when the fat is whittled away is this:

Only by an incorporation of the courts or by an act of Congress can the RTKABA be granted to all the people. (And btw guys, just who are the people once again?). The granting of rights by courts or the state is antithetical to the purpose described in the DOI.

So besides the people question what exactly are the inalienabale rights described in the text of the DOI and who or what grants them?

Conservative Goddess wrote:

...The Supreme Court, specifically Justice Black, in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), said the following:
"My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment, an the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment's first section, separately, and as a whole, were intended to accomplish was to the make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states."

Ineloquently phrased but well-meaning,

What's with the "ineloquently phrased" bit? Justice Black make a perfectly understandable, factual point. -- If you study the actual Congressional arguments made by the 14ths framers, they intended to make "the Bill of Rights applicable to the states".

Justice Black's "total incorporation" theory has never commanded a majority of the Court.

His factual comment is not a 'theory'.. Here's another fact. -- The political majority in the USA has never supported individual rights as outlined in our Constitution as Amended. -- Obviously, a USSC majority mirrors the views of the political majority that appoints them.

A string of cases, spanning from 1897 through 1971, have selectively incorporated some of the first eight amendments via the 14th Amendment.

The USSC court loves this undelegated power to selectively 'rule' on what rights are Constitutional..

Could you two point out where in the Constitution they derived such a power? -- Can ANYone?

As of this writing, only the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's requirement of a grand jury indictment, and the Seventh Amendment, have not been incorporated.
As a result, according to the view of the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.....

My, isn't that a nice view. -- Why one earth would anyone support that view, -- who actually values their own RKBA's?
Why give a State the power to infringe?