To: tpaine
Sorry, don't mean to be cryptic (one of the lesser virtues of FR).
Conklin was speaking for "joint stock companies" and "citizens of northern states who took up residence in the South." He saw the 14th amendment as a corporate protection, not an extension of the Bill of Rights.
I understand this exceeds the speed limit here, as to what "incorporation" means in terms of Scotus arguments. The point is that the 14th weren't no virgin blessing.
24 posted on
09/15/2003 9:00:38 PM PDT by
nicollo
To: nicollo
I understand this exceeds the speed limit here, as to what "incorporation" means in terms of Scotus arguments. The point is that the 14th weren't no virgin blessing
-nic-
Sure, there are always political motives 'behind' most anything..
But it's always amazed me how so many seemingly rational people think the 14th is the evil amendment. -- When its clear intent is to stop fed/state/local infringments on our individual rights.
26 posted on
09/15/2003 9:36:19 PM PDT by
tpaine
( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson