Supreme Absurdity: Scott v. Harris

The Federalist ^ | 2/27/07 | Paul Madison

[villagerjoel]

Don't worry, because GWB put conservative judges in the SCOTUS...right?

[Redbob]

Surely you're not trying to say that the Supreme Court has never before infringed on the police powers of the States?

I don't think you even need to be a Constitutional scholar to show the falacy there.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Well, I guess he wont be running from the cops anymore now will he?

[kinoxi]

Ping to self for later read.

[Carry_Okie]

The framer of the Fourth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities are only those found under article 4, section 2 as they had always existed, and not the bill of rights.

Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth, and was a crook to boot (a shill for the railroads). His omission of the word "natural" in front of the word "persons" in the citizenship clause, was one of the greatest crimes ever visited upon the Constitution.

[AZRepublican]

>Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fourth

Typo resulting from FR's spell checker!

[o_zarkman44]

next interferance of official duty heading for the Supreme Court; the War Powers Act. The RATs must strip Bush of the ability to fight a war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere unless they can micromanage the details of battle to suit their own agendas.

[Carry_Okie]

BTW, the "selective incorporation" doctrine that arose out of resistance to the naked Federal power grab in the Fourteenth Amendment is IMO a legal abomination. Frankly, the Amendment was never legally ratified and should probably be dumped.

If you haven't read it, you might find this exploration of selective incorporation enlightening.

[AZRepublican]

I agree with you 100% it wasn't properly ratified. Radicals did not divide up the rebel states into military districts for no other reason than to force ratification.

On the other hand, the 14th isn't a bad amendment if the intent is strictly followed, but of course courts cannot be trusted in those regards (although slaughterhouse got it right).

[Carry_Okie]

On the other hand, the 14th isn't a bad amendment if the intent is strictly followed,

We disagree on the intent. IMO the intent was to raise European cash to pay war debt by agreeing to enforce equal protection for fictitious persons. The article cites some fascinating history in that regard.

[robertpaulsen]

"The framer of the Fourth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, was clear and dead serious when he said over and over that those privileges and immunities ..."

I believe the author meant, "The framer of the Fourth Fourteenth Amendment's first section ...".

[robertpaulsen]

"There is latterly no Fourth Amendment issue under the federal Constitution because it had been strongly established by the court and the framers of the fourteenth amendment to apply to anyone other than the Federal Government."

Gee Louise! Again? This should read,

"There is latterly no Fourth Amendment issue under the federal Constitution because it had been strongly established by the court and the framers of the fourteenth amendment not to apply to anyone other than the Federal Government."

[robertpaulsen]

"He officially stated in January of 1871 that the privileges and immunities incorporated nothing other than they had before the fourteenth."

That may indeed be true, but the U.S. Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment (not the Privileges and Immunities Clause) to incorporate the Bill of Rights and make them applicable to the states.

"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police‑‑which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment‑‑is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable againt the States through the Due Process Clause."
-- Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

[robertpaulsen]

The 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, and 15th) and was meant to extend some national privileges and immunities to the newly freed slaves who were not Citizens of any state -- the 14th created a "citizen of the United States".

[Carry_Okie]

You are repeating what was told to you in history books. The 14th created the corporate citizen of the United States as well, which was the real reason for omitting the word "natural" from in front of "persons."

I suggest you read the linked article.

[robertpaulsen]

"I suggest you read the linked article."

I did. This conspiracy of yours about the omission of the word "natural" is as insignificant and laughable as those who argue about the placement of commas in the second amendment.

There is so much else wrong with the 14th, you're simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic with your "natural" citizen folderol.

[Carry_Okie]

Considering that we have the the machinations of tax exempt foundations and the UN holding the treaties they write virtually running this country, for you to call the legal toy that made it possible "insignificant" is what's laughable.

International law is the Achilles heel of the Constitution, and was meant to be so for the same reasons we got the 14th. You have only to read Hamilton's bogus defense of the Senate's manner of treaty ratification in Federalist 75 to see it in full view.

[robertpaulsen]

"the machinations of tax exempt foundations and the UN holding the treaties they write ... "

But of course (sound of hand slapping forehead)! Machinations! The UN! Those are much worse than 20 million illegals crossing the border to squat and drop the next U.S. Citizen! What was I thinking?

Much worse than having five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court deciding what the first or the fourth amendment really means for the entire country. Telling me that nude dancing must be allowed in my state because it's speech. Telling me that a Nativity Scene at Christmas is not allowed in my state. Telling me that my state must allow sodomy.

Lion and tigers and tax exempt foundations, oh my!

[AZRepublican]

Looks to me all involved in the 14th amendment framing disagree with the supreme court because they were very clear the 14th gave the govt zero police oversight. The language does not oust the state and local construction of their own laws, as Jacob Howard stated in regards to the state of Georgia.