Replies

Since you have alerted shown yourself to be a liar many times over it does little good to tell you what you probably known but Madison's discussion of the BoR applying to the states was ONLY that. That interpretation was rejected by the Congress hence the BoR did not apply to the states. Another student of this point says " the fact that Madison had proposed more general language that would have applied to the states and that the First Congress, which drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights, based upon a first draft provided by Madison, REJECTED Madison's language in favor of the language which restricts only 'Congress'." Hence you are caught misrepresenting Congress's intention by quoting Madison out of context and reversing his impact on the question. Pretty dishonest.

Your vile slander of the greatest Chief Justice and misrepresenting his opinion also will not pass. Marshall was practically infallible when it gave to logic and legal reasoning and this opinion is a masterpiece of both though possibly too intricate and complex for ideologues. That irrefutable logic was one of the reasons Jefferson hated him so much. At any rate I will reconstruct that reasoning wrt to the BoR which anyone can check by reviewing Barron v Baltimore. Likely as not you are familiar with it but in your mad frenzy to slander all who do not worship guns you ignore it.

Marshall points out the obvious fact that the Constitution was written to govern the FEDERAL government NOT for the governance of the individual states. "The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in GENERAL terms, are naturally, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations on power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."

Within the states they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, "as their own wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves."

Article I section 9 contains the limitations on federal power. "Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms....The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed upon the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures."

Marshall also points out that limitations placed upon States are EXPRESSLY phrased to specifically apply to them. "No State shall...." And they are placed upon ONLY those matters delegated to the General Government. "The question of their application to States is not left to CONSTRUCTION. It is averred in POSITIVE words."

He continues: "If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this PLAIN and MARKED line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act of State power, words are employed which DIRECTLY EXPRESS that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason." STRICT construction vs. reading INTO the document.

Then he states an argument I used earlier ignored by you because it cannot be refuted. If the states wished to limit their own power they could have done so within their constitutions. But they were ONLY concerned with limiting the power of the General Government NOT their own. "The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could NEVER have occurred to ANY human being as a mode of doing what might be effected by the State itself.

And for those who have not had enough punishment, Marshall nails the nail of history into their coffin. The great opposition to the creation of the Constitution was concerned about the possible loss of Liberty thereby. Hence, "[i]n almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- NOT against those of the local governments."

I expect to see you admit you were wrong to slander Marshall and that it is false to declare he was "rewriting the Constitution."

That interpretation was rejected by the Congress hence the BoR did not apply to the states.

No. Actually. It wasn't. Nor will you find anything in Elliot's or the Anti-/Federalist papers to support such a follish notion. Hence the wording of the Constitution itself. Your hero worship of a judge who changed the plain meaning of the Constitution to undercut our civil Rights is disgusting.

Vile Slander? Now that is laughable. Get a grip on yourself. How is it infallible logic that the retard couldn't even put "Supreme law of the Land" and "shall not be infringed" and come up with the correct calculus? Further, you could reconstruct a two-piece jigsaw puzzle without an instruction manual. You have already shown you know NOTHING about how a Constitution, nor a Republic, work.

Take your idiot democracy elsewhere...

If the states wished to limit their own power they could have done so within their constitutions.

Actually, as I pointed out in Elliot's, which apparently neither your nor your Lord Marshall bothered to read... This very fact was argued. It was concluded that sine some States did NOT include a Bill of Rights, that one should be included in the Constitution to cut down on confusion between States, that all Citizens would havea common and recognizable set of Rights, and that certain Rights so vital for freedom would be codified and that much harder to infringe. Also, it was mentioned that having duplication in those protections in the State Constitutions was not a bad thing and that States were still free to enact even MORE protections.

They never dreamed that idiots like you would come along and cheerlead the REMOVAL of said protections at the State level.

What you and Marshall both miss is that in order to ratify an Amendment, Congress and the States both have to sign off on it. This was done in accordance with the Constitution for the BoR and needed no assbat judges signoff before it could be "incorperated".