Replies

"Instead, the 14th Amendment imposed its limitation directly upon the States, thereby bypassing giving Congress direct jurisdiction over the deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people without due process for violation of law made criminal."

So, the Bill of Rights amounts to, "deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people". This is rubbish, so is the rest of the article.

So, the Bill of Rights amounts to, "deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people". This is rubbish, so is the rest of the article. Rubish? Obiviously you never read what James Madison said about the purpose of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment!! Shame on you! Madison said they were "safeguards" for which the people have long been accustomed to have "imposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power."

That is the extenct of it, hath no more.

"Obiviously you never read what James Madison said about the purpose of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment!"

I've read it. Apparently some people find the Bill of Rights repugnent. That's obvious, because the 14th Amendment was required to extend them to the States after more than a few States and their majorities violated the rights of their citizens.

I don't find the Bill of Rights rupugnent, or any threat whatsoever. They protect rights, never as the author claims do they violate rights. Whether, or not some judge cares to honor the plain English contained theirin, does not render the Bill of Rights the problem. The following is to the author and anyone that agrees with him, because their goal is to gut the Bill of Rights.

Hey, P.A. Madison! The Bill of Rights you hate so much protects the unborn. Capitol punishment requires a crime. Where's the crime and the due process to convict the kid of a crime? The Bill of Rights says that's forbidden!

Where in the Constitution are the States limited from outlawing this act? The right of privacy implied in the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment limits search and seizure. It does not prohibit legislating ANY law, unrelated to the express prohibitions! The 10th Amendment says the States have the right to make that law.

Plessy vs Ferguson comes to mind Madison. Is that what you want back? How 'bout we dispence with the right to trial by jury and counsel to cut costs? Why not ignore the 2nd Amend. like you have been? Just toss it altogether!