Replies

“unequivocally”

I see, since what you cite is judicial interpretation and not the Constitution you are taking the position that the judicial opinion (as opposed to the Constitution) is something that is written in stone, something that a latter opinion cannot disagree with, alter, revise, or revoke. Because, if it can, then the opinion is NOT “unequivocal”.

There are those of a strict constructionist view who would argue that many of the things presently believed to be legitimate extensions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th amendment is more simply modern judicial interpretation and not Congressional intent in adopting the 14h amendment.

The “Bill of Rights” is NOT an independent, single amendment to the Constitution; it is ten separate and distinct amendments. Each one presents its own distinct mandate against the powers of the Federal government.

The “incorporation doctrine” is neither found, described or spelled out in any fashion in the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights is not mentioned in the 14th amendment.

Jurisprudence for nearly 100 years after the adoption of the 14th amendment (by those closest in time to its adoption) did not know such a doctrine was hidden in the 14th amendment (because it wasn’t).

“The incorporation doctrine is a creation of a U.S. Supreme Court, not the Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.” [nor nearly 100 years of later Congresses or Supreme Court judges).

What can also be seen since judges enacted the “incorporation doctrine” into the 14th amendment by judicial fiat, that, as was feared, they have inconsistently applied it. (rule by men and not rule by law)

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/

Full disclosure: Am arguing against the ideas in the Bill of Rights? No. The legal question is does the words “Congress shall make no law” apply to Congress and Congress alone. Yes, it applies to Congress and Congress alone and no amendment can be said to extend the federal writ beyond what the Constitution and prior amendments to it have provided, unless that amendment explicitly and intentionally does so, which, as far as the “incorporation doctrine” the 14th amendment does not do. Some judges woke up one day and dreamed into existence, because doing so extended the powers of the federal government, period.

If we the people had wanted to write the incorporation doctrine into the 14th amendment, we could have done so. We never did. The Constiution has not been “interpreted” by such doctrines, it has been usurped.