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

To: tpaine
What's out of context about it?

The court admirably dispelled falsehoods regarding the actual meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Those reading the Engligh language with the meaning which it ordinarily conveys, those conversant with the political and legal history of the concept of due process, those sensitive to the relations of the States to the central government as well as the relation of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the process of justice, would hardly recognize the Fourteenth Amendment as a cover for the various explicit provisions of the first eight Amendments. Some of these are enduring reflections of experience with human nature, while some express the restricted views of Eighteenth-Century England regarding the best methods for the ascertainment of facts. The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.

ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)


260 posted on 02/19/2002 1:42:49 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
His arguments that the 14th 'covers' the first 8 amendments are not clear. [that means not in context]

-- Just as a start. - Make a point or give it up.

266 posted on 02/19/2002 1:53:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | 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