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

To: RKV
"If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states, that is."

Well then it was one of the better kept secrets, in that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Senate itself thought the 14th applied the BOR to the states.

A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.

Eight years after the 14th was ratified, Congress was considering the "Blaine Amendment", a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government. Why would they do that if the 14th amendment already applied the First Amendment to the states?

61 posted on 01/15/2006 11:23:16 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen; RKV
RKV wrote:

"If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states, that is."

pausen replies:

Well then it was one of the better kept secrets, in that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Senate itself thought the 14th applied the BOR to the states.

Yes robby, -- the reconstruction eras politicians & judges did not want to admit that ex-slaves were entitled to life, liberty, or property; -- they even deprived them of due process.
Very few still hold to your belief that this was a correct interpretation of the 14th.

A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.

Of course not. The court did not want to enforce the 14th against the southern States that were ignoring it.

Eight years after the 14th was ratified, Congress was considering the "Blaine Amendment", a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government. Why would they do that if the 14th amendment already applied the First Amendment to the states?

Because they did not want Utah admitted as a secular State, and were preparing to pass an Amendment to that effect if necessary.
-- It wasn't. -- Rationality prevailed.

83 posted on 01/15/2006 12:39:44 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment

Careful. You'll upset the emanation of a penumbra fans.

219 posted on 01/16/2006 3:47:50 AM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.

Judicial Activism wasn't invented in the 1970s. Duh.

420 posted on 01/17/2006 11:26:46 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | 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