Posted on 07/11/2006 4:03:24 PM PDT by tpaine
U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers
Following is the fifth in a series of columns by members of the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform.
By W.S. Dixon
Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments.
In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws."
This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states.
If the Supreme Court of the United States had not made this interpretation of the above clauses in the 14th Amendment, the states would have been free to restrict religious freedom and even establish a particular religion as the official state religion, to prohibit any desired variety of speech, to limit or prohibit the printing or disseminating of any information the state decided was not allowed, to prohibit or restrict meetings of any kind as the legislature desired, and to prohibit or restrict access to state public officials. Other restrictions on the states are specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 10. In addition, because of the powers assigned to the Congress, the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy.
Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above.
State constitutions are limited, in part as a result of these restrictions. States do, however, have the ability to regulate all other levels of government situated within their territory --
Anyone know anything about the: "-- Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform --"?
Constitution's getting to be a hard sell bump.
A number of states HAD official religions when the Constitution was ratified, and the First Amendment was not understood do interfere with that. All such state religions had already fallen by the wayside prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but their earlier existence is nonetheless worth noting.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws."
Why stop at the 1st amendment? The right of the people to keep and bear arms should also be "incorporated."
If the Supreme Court of the United States had not made this interpretation of the above clauses in the 14th Amendment, the states would have been free to restrict religious freedom and even establish a particular religion as the official state religion, ...
How ironic. The 1st amendment was intended to protect State establishments from Federal infringement. Many States retained their religious establishments after the adoption of the Bill of Rights well into the 19th century. The above incorporation interpretation must be in error in some way.
Problem is, the 14th was basically passed at gunpoint. What do we do about that?
I would say that this part of the article tells you were this group is coming from.
They are coming from the left, specifically from the Teachers Unions.
Constitution's getting to be a hard sell
Schools have been forced to fall down on the job and todays parents don't know enough to teach it ...
Hard sell NO !
It just needs to be KNOWN first !...
The UN Declaration of Human Rights (Eleanor Roosevelt) lists education along with thirty or so other human rights that any state should provide. The Declaration doesn't provide suggestions for funding with anywhere near that kind of detail.
Why stop at the 1st amendment? The right of the people to keep and bear arms should also be "incorporated."
The 2nd doesn't really need 'incorporation' by the USSC.
None of the amendments did. -- They all apply as being an integral part of our supreme Law of the Land. -- According to:
Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
How ironic. The 1st amendment was intended to protect State establishments from Federal infringement. Many States retained their religious establishments after the adoption of the Bill of Rights well into the 19th century. The above incorporation interpretation must be in error in some way.
State sponsored religions were sort of 'grandfathered in' for the original States. -- But look at the trouble Utah had trying to enter the Union while 'respecting' the Mormon religion.
Took Utah 40 years to gain statehood.
Yep, and our freedom was basically won at gunpoint, -- twice.
Why do we need to do anything about that?
I think we can agree that no one should have the power to deny anyone an education, -- nor should anyone be forced to pay for one.
The states agreed that any thing in their constitutions or laws, including legal decisions that were contrary to the the supreme law (Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution) could not be used to prosecute Citizens. That ratification was necessary in order for the states to qualify to join the Union. (Article VI, para 2).
With that in mind, let me refer to this clause: '. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life . . ."
To deny the right of a Citizen to defend their life is to deprive a person of life. Gun control and gun bans are a deprivation of rights and are repugnant not only to inalienable rights, but are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution as well.
Sorry, I missed answering your post in turn. -- See my comments on #9 about existing State sponsored religions being 'grandfathered in'.
Congress was specifically told to 'make no law' on that particular issue; -- which lead to the states rights crowd erroneously insisting that States did not have to honor the bill of rights.
Welladay, none of the federal BOR could possible apply to the states until the 14th. The 14th conveyed citizenship at the federal level whereas before it was conveyed at the state level.
That expanded the central government's national power tremendously, and, by peripheral effect, expanded the federal powers. I stopped reading there.
We're still discovering the effects of that one change, that is to say the courts are.
Well put. -- Its amazing how many otherwise rock bottom conservatives on FR will defend a 'States rights' position on gun control however.
-- It seems they hate the 14th so much that they lose sight of the fact that it may one of our best defense's against the gun grabbers.
I've never understood that argument, -- as someone born in territory, and who lived all their life in a territory of the USA prior to 1868, -- certainly was a citizen of the USA; -- correct?
You will need to expand on this statement before I can agree or disagree.
I can agree that no one who can pay for their education should be denied that education.
I can agree that no one should be forced to pay for someone else’s education.
What exactly you meant I am not sure.
At the risk of having to respond to you for the next three or four days, I will say that I do not agree with you.
I must have missed the series where he discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments.
5.56mm
You will need to expand on this statement before I can agree or disagree.
I can agree that no one who can pay for their education should be denied that education.
I can agree that no one should be forced to pay for someone else’s education.
What exactly you meant I am not sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.