The so-called “Incorporation Doctrine”, called "counterfeit" by Constitutional Scholar Robert Bork, is the false premise the modern Supreme Court uses for 1-8 Amendment cases.
The 14A is actually one of three Post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments limited to reinstating ex-slaves as full citizens. The Left has twisted (as they always do) and used the 14A to give the feds sweeping powers never contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14A, which sweeping powers if contemplated would have triggered a massive debate among the ratifiers of 14A in 1868. There is NO record of ANY discussion about giving the feds these powers. Thus, there is no evidence to support anything other than the limited intent of the ratifiers of 14A to provide ex-salves full citizenship (badly expressed as the "privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens).
See the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, decided five years after the 14A was ratified and which precedent the Leftist Court has utterly ignored.
Over the last 100+ years, we have allow the Lying Left to illegally amend the Constitution ALWAYS in favor of MORE AND MORE government power to the point where the Left basically ignores the Constitution and law schools teach the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. However, the Constitution is ABSOLUTELY the Supreme Law of the Land over the feds (U.S. Const., art. IV, cl. 2).
A HUGE goal we patriots have is to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, dismantling the 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the federal government, and restoring our Free Constitutional Republic.
“A HUGE goal we patriots have is to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended,”
You are NOT a patriot!
A patriot is one that actually understands the US constitution and doesn’t apply his retarded conspiracy theory IQ to twist it into something no founder ever said it was to be.
You are the typical moron the left-wing claims conservatives are as they stereotype the rest of us with your retarded childish conspiracy nonsense.
We denounce you and your childish stupidity and ignorance.
You’ve never read the founding father’s statements on the constitution. Heck, you’ve never read the entire document. You only pick bits and pieces and distort their meaning to make yourself sound intelligent. A typical underachiever mentality.
I respectfully disagree.
First, the 14th Amendment (14A) clarifies that Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of 14A.
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; 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.”
"14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
”… which sweeping powers if contemplated would have triggered a massive debate [??? emphasis added] among the ratifiers of 14A in 1868."
"Massive debate" is an understatement. The northern states forced the southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment. The spoils of war.
In fact, let's call the original constitution, drafted partly to insure domestic tranquility, but which didn't make it beyond the Civil War imo, Constitution I.
Agreeing with you that Section 1 of 14A is now being interpreted differently from what its drafter's had intended, let's call the post-Civil War constitution with its then new 14A Constitution II.
I'm not sure what version of Constitution we're on today, but I'll call the Woodrow Wilson 16th and 17th Amendment (17A) ratification constitution Constitution III and the FDR era constitution Constitution IV.
And why not call the Obamacare constitution Constitution V?
And if you consider that the national highway system, NASA too, were established without required constitutional amendments, then we're at least still below Constitution X.
But what about unconstitutional, political correct, 17A vote-winning federal civil rights? Maybe closer to Constitution X than I think.
"There is NO record of ANY discussion about giving the feds these powers."
Note that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had clarified that the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power make punitive civil laws until the states gave them such powers via 14A, such power limited to strengthening only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it [emphasis added]. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
In fact, in the post-Civil War case of Minor v. Happersett, the court reflected on both Section 5 of 14A and Bingham's words by clarifying the following. Although 14A didn't create new rights, it gave the feds the power to strengthen rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, not that Congress has done a good job of that. (Post 17A ratification career lawmakers protect their voting records by letting the Supreme legislate such things from the bench.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Corrections, insights welcome.