Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee; eyedigress
Oh good we're using wikipedia as a valid source for Constitutional arguments. What's next? Coloring books to teach law? But as that is the source of choice, let's use another bit shall we?
Incorporation extends to States
Main article: Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to the several state governments. Parts of the amendments initially proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not appear to apply to the powers of state governments.[22]

Thus, states had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government—not against those of local governments." However, in the 1925 judgment on Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, made certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then cited the Gitlow case as precedent for a series of decisions that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation.

Again I will state irrevocably the Bill of Rights did not apply to the separate and sovereign states in any fashion until the 20th century. And to date not all of the BOR apply to the states.
58 posted on 10/28/2007 4:37:12 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: billbears; eyedigress; Jim Robinson
Again I will state irrevocably the Bill of Rights did not apply to the separate and sovereign states in any fashion until the 20th century.

So again I ask, why even bother with the Second Amendment if every state had the power to rescind the right to keep and bear arms and effectively make this right nonexistent except on federal property.

And what purpose did the Fifth Amendment serve in an era where nearly every crime would be prosecuted at the state and not the federal level?

The Tenth Amendment granted the states POWERS to make laws not prohibited, it DID NOT give the states the power to restrict RIGHTS.

Now, I understand that you aren't a fan of the Bill of Rights and that you really don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is the Law of the Land.

64 posted on 10/28/2007 4:44:20 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: billbears

The BOR was passed so that states would sign! Eh?


81 posted on 10/28/2007 5:10:21 PM PDT by eyedigress ( Questions are tough for a reason, either you're a liar or your math sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson