Posted on 09/15/2003 6:14:58 PM PDT by tpaine
Numb? It is pretty amazing that anyone, even you, didn't previously know that the 14th Amendment applies to corporate persons.
Bingham and the rest of the Republican majority very much gained from it, starting with the oaths of allegiance (especially those not taken) and very much starting with increased Federal powers, which were excercised mightily over the new states that replaced the old ones.
As I stated earlier, we must observe and be grateful for the 14th's extensions and guarantees of the Bill of Rights. We must also beware of the dangers of extensive and enlarged interpretation of it. It leaves me torn and wishing there was another way than the "equal protection of the laws" as it is currently understood, as to embody "fairness" and equality of outcome rather then equality before the law.
I wonder what Abe would have said about it all.
Here's an interesting conundrum presented by the 14th amendment, this from the article, Fair Interpretation
The actual text of the First Amendment — "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" — raises the question of how an amendment that speaks only of Congress applies to the Texas school board. The short answer is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to state and local governments, as incorporating some of the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.This interpretation was not "discovered" by the high court until half a century after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, however, and it was flatly rejected by the court upon reviewing the issue shortly after the Amendment was passed.
Although it may be too late in the day to contest this Incorporation Doctrine, honest scholars must nevertheless concede that the Incorporation Doctrine is at its weakest in the Establishment Clause context. By applying the Establishment Clause to the states, the courts have found implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment the very power to interfere with religion in the states that was explicitly prohibited to the federal government by the First Amendment. A strained reading, at the very least.
Who benefited, in what, where? Can you give some specifics? What power did Bingham gain, for instance?
Bingham and the rest of the Republican majority very much gained from it, starting with the oaths of allegiance (especially those not taken)
How does an oath equate to a power gain? - Makes no sense.
and very much starting with increased Federal powers, which were excercised mightily over the new states that replaced the old ones.
You can't give specifics, can you? Typical of this issue. Lots of empty rhetoric about "increased Federal powers", which are violations of the 14th in themselves, not because of it.
As I stated earlier, we must observe and be grateful for the 14th's extensions and guarantees of the Bill of Rights. We must also beware of the dangers of extensive and enlarged interpretation of it.
Again, -- show where the 14th is the cause of any "extensive and enlarged" federal powers.. You can't.. Polititical failure in our republocrat system is the cause of federalism, not some imagined faults in our constitution.
It leaves me torn and wishing there was another way than the "equal protection of the laws" as it is currently understood, as to embody "fairness" and equality of outcome rather then equality before the law.
I wonder what Abe would have said about it all.
In a sense I think he did, in his opening & closing lines at Gettysberg:
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ---
[thus we]
--- shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Begs the fact that the bill of rights has always been the supreme law of the land, and all states are bound thereby. [See Art. VI]
This interpretation was not "discovered" by the high court until half a century after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, however, and it was flatly rejected by the court upon reviewing the issue shortly after the Amendment was passed.
The 'states rights' faction has always rejected that our US Constitution is supreme as to defining individual rights. At times they get the court to agree, erroneously.
Although it may be too late in the day to contest this Incorporation Doctrine, honest scholars must nevertheless concede that the Incorporation Doctrine is at its weakest in the Establishment Clause context. By applying the Establishment Clause to the states, the courts have found implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment the very power to interfere with religion in the states that was explicitly prohibited to the federal government by the First Amendment. A strained reading, at the very least.
Not strained at all..
As a territory, before statehood, a region of the US is unquestionably governed by our US Constitution..
Would it make sense that once admitted as a state, such an area could violate its citizens religious freedoms, or freedom of speech/press?
Their RKBA's? -- Absurd idea.
Our individual rights, as outlined in our BORs, -- cannot be infringed upon by any level of government, fed/state/local..
Yep, - that has been the supposition of 'state rights' advocates, which is unsupported by facts.
The 14th assured control of the southern courts and constitutions through the oversight given the Feds in the 14th.
This 'oversite' insures that individuals rights are not violated. States retain their powers to fight federal edicts, but refuse to use them through political failures..
The 14th is not at fault.
This includes, shall we say, asset management. Big time northern investment in rebuilding the South, especially the railroads.
Easy to 'say', but the proof is not forthcoming. In any case, reconsruction is over.
It's that simple: and it's that invidious.
No, the states rights movement is not over, - and what's insidious about it is the ~insistence~ that states can ignore our civil rights. Why is this a goal?
Lincoln's attitude towards it likely would have been one of suspicion. It was used to assure Federal control over the southern governments.
Not so, and the more the big lie is chanted about fed control thru the 14th, the less credibility the movement gains.
The story of Reconstruction is not pretty, on all sides. Sadly, the Republican leadership didn't include the spirit of Lincoln's 2nd inaugural in the 14th amendment. Again, all kinds of good in it. Too bad they threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Our baby of individual rights is being thrown out by the advocates of states rights.. Makes no sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.