Are there any constitutional rights in the BOR that have specifically been held to NOT have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment? Or are there just cases that say certain rights have been incorporated and no cases addressing certain rights?
Thank you in advance.
"Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment)."
"...In Minneapolis and St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to state court civil trials. In reaching its decision, the Court looks to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the vehicle for applying the Bill of Rights to the states) and concludes that a jury trial in a civil case is not a fundamental due process right."
Iwo Jima wrote: "-- Are there any constitutional rights in the BOR that have specifically been held to NOT have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment? Or are there just cases that say certain rights have been incorporated and no cases addressing certain rights? --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Incorcoration" doctrine is itself highly questionable.
The Incorporation Debate
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687126/posts?q=1&&page=1
Justice Black held the view that all of our rights must be honored by fed, State & local gov'ts:
"-- My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment's first section, separately, and as a whole, were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill of Rights, applicable to the states.
With full knowledge of the import of the Barron decision, the framers and backers of the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed its purpose to be to overturn the constitutional rule that case had announced.
This historical purpose has never received full consideration or exposition in any opinion of this Court interpreting the Amendment. --"