[AndyJackson]

First, individual has rights. States have powers and those powers are constrained by the Constitution and its ammendments, including the 14th. As a libertarian, I have no problem with the Federal government jumping all over an uppity prosecutor who has brought charges on a fishy story and suppressed exculpatory evidence all for his own political gain.

The quoted stated stipulates "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property," and these rights "are protected against ... impairment under color of State law."

The presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, right to be secure in person and property except by due process of law are rights we all have, rights which Nifong has violated under color of State law.

I really don't know why you are trying to give this petty unconstitutional tyrant a pass under color of a doctrine of "states rights" that does not even exist.

[AndyJackson]

oops, excuse the typos.

[Jezebelle]

Very well stated. So much so that it should put to rest the knee-jerk state's rights arguments that always come up anytime someone has the audacity to suggest the federal government has a role in anything besides national security. If that were the case, the constitution would consist of only one article, and the BoR would also consist solely of one amendment.