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

To: marktwain

It was true of the second amendment as well as state supported religions. Nor was there freedom of speech and assembly with regard to the South.

Article I, Sections 9 and 10.
Barron v Baltimore was the first BoR case before the Court in 1833. And the Court found (unanimously) that the prohibitions in the BoRs were inoperative unless the Constitution expressly made the states subject to the prohibitions.

The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States.... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that “no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.


57 posted on 01/23/2019 11:32:40 AM PST by arrogantsob (See "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: arrogantsob
As you notice, the Court did not rule thus until over 40 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The founding generation had died off. Their principles started being ignored.

58 posted on 01/23/2019 11:48:48 AM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | 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