Remind me again, what do floor statements have to do with interpretation of an Amendment? I thought that was the job of the Courts. Interesting that the Courts that made many of those early decisions probably knew well the 'statements on the floor'. As so many SoCons bleat around here when pointed to the intent of the Constitution by the writers of the Constitution itself, if it's not in the document, it doesn't mean squat.
And if you recall some of those primary sponsors were Radical Republicans, many who would be considered Democrats today considering their love of big government
With the morons we have running politics and the courts these days, it doesn't matter whether it's "in the document" or not.
Florida Constitution, Article One, Section Two:
"Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"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 the equal protection of the laws.
The floor statements are used by the courts in determining the original intent behind the a constitutional provision if the language is not clear. In this case, the clear intent of congress appears to have been to prevent states from enacting the Black Codes which deprived African Americans of freedom or movement, property, and such things. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided to gut the 14th Amendment in the Civil Rights cases where it decided that the only thing that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities was only designed to protect specifically federal rights such as the right to petition the national government and the right to travel on the high seas. This decision was an activist decision which clearly went against the expressed Congressional Intent behind the 14th Amendment.
A few later the Courts decided to enshrine the right to contract under the 14th Amendment and throughout the late 1800s and early 1900’s they used the due process clause to strike down any state law regulating the hours of workers or setting a minimum wage. Finally, in the 1930’s the court abandoned using strict scrutiny on economic legislation and started to consider whether the due process clause incorporated some of the protections of liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
So, its a long and very complicated history. However, the one thing that there is no question about is that it gave Congress the power to protect the lives of citizens from arbitrary state action. In the Schievo case the state judiciary put a woman to death without a trial. Congress clearly had the power under the 14th Amendment to intervene.
Okay then, here are a few things for all of you states rights, liberaltarian-anarchists to consider since you believe that the Founding Fathers didn't believe that the Bill of Rights was binding on the individual states:
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to abridge your rights to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble or to petition the government?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to restrict your right to keep and bear arms?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right force you to quarter the military in your home in times of peace?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to illegally search your home without a warrant?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to force you to testify against yourself or try you twice for the same crime or otherwise deny you due process?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right take your property for public use without compensating you?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right jail you indefinitely without a trial?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to deny you a jury of your peers?
Do you believe that an individual state does or should have the right to impose excessive bail, fines or punish you in a cruel and inhumane way?
I will presume that your answer to all of these questions is NO. It is axiomatic that when the Bill of Rights was written that these rights HAD TO BE binding on the states or else they were worthless. The Tenth Amendment talks about POWERS being reserved to the states, but it is clear that no government has the power to abridge rights.
So, you and the other liberaltarian-anarchists can believe whatever nonsense you like. You bring up states rights when it fits into your liberal agenda (killing the innocent, drugs, pornography, etc.), but at the same time you would (properly) resist a state that tried to take away any of the rights you care about.
You and your RINO Paul worshipping ilk ARE NOT conservatives, you are not even Republicans, you are a nuisance that perpetually tries to bastardize the Constitution to your own liberal and anarchistic ends.