"State government support for Congregationalist churches did not end until 1818 in Connecticut and not until 1834 in Massachusetts."
--mb-soft.com/believe
What about free speech? You're saying that free speech applied to the states?
Wrong. Not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925), when it was incorporated under the due process clause of the 14th amendmnent.
OK. The fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures). A fundamental right protected by the states? Yes?
Nope. Not until 1914 in Weeks v. United States, (1914). Prior to that, the states didn't need a warrant. How about that?
The sixth amendment, specifically the right to an attorney. (Recall the Miranda warning ... "you have the right to an attorney ...?)
No. You didn't have that right protected under the states until 1963! [see GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, (1963)].
I can go on, but I think you see my point.
The BOR originally applied only to the newly-formed federal government. Years after the passage of the 14th amendment, some, but not all, of the BOR were applied to the states in a process known as selective incorporation.
The second amendment has not been incorporated, and only applies to the federal government. Your gun rights are secured by your state constitution.
You point out that courts have failed to enforce the Constitution and that legislatures pass unconstitutional laws. No news there. You have ignored the counter-examples posted above in the text of the Constitution itself (e.g. Article 6) and in the quote from Dred Scott. Plainly put, incorporation is a pernicious doctrine designed to get around the plain meaning of the Constitution. Do some courts rule on the basis of this erroneous doctrine? Yes. Are they wrong to do so? Yes. Now we are in the position of having some absolutely terrible case law to deal with.
The BOR originally applied only to the newly-formed federal government. Years after the passage of the 14th amendment, some, but not all, of the BOR were applied to the states in a process known as selective incorporation.
The second amendment has not been incorporated, and only applies to the federal government. Your gun rights are secured by your state constitution
Paulsen, it is truly amazing to see you post day in an day out, -- advocating that State & local governments be allowed to violate your own constitutional rights.
-- What's your angle? What will you gain by losing your freedom?
You retort:
Advocating? I'm stating a fact which you cannot dispute, so you attack my motives?
I've disputed your misstatement of the facts for years, in every particular. Your refusal to acknowledge the supremacy clause raises doubts as to your motives.
Sorry, but that's the way the U.S. Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers.
Yep, our Constitution is the supreme "Law of the Land". Admit it.
When Jefferson was working on the BOR, he was presented with an amendment which would apply the BOR to the states -- he rejected it.
As being redundant. How many times must that be repeated to you?
It wasn't until years after the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 -- a change to the U.S. Constitution as originally drafted -- that some of the BOR were applied to the states.
The BOR's always applied. The 14th was passed to put a stop to violations of them [the RKBA's in particular] by various States.
Someone tells you the sky is blue and your response is, "I wonder why he said that? Is he saying the sky should be blue? Well, if he says it's blue, then I know it's not blue despite my lying eyes." Get a grip. Argue the facts, if you can. Otherwise ....
I argue the facts, then ask why you ignore them.
-- So you whine that I'm attacking your motives.. Daft.
Who are you arguing against?
robertpaulsen also said: "Years after the passage of the 14th amendment, some, but not all, of the BOR were applied to the states in a process known as selective incorporation.
I think I am beginning to see the difficulty we are having. You seem relatively content to describe "what is" whereas some of us feel justified in dealing with "what should be".
There is no mechanism, save that invented by the Supreme Court, to cause "privileges and immunities" to suddenly spring up as the result of one of their decisions.
The Gitlow decision was a recognition that freedom of speech is a privilege and immunity whose infringement is prohibited by the states through action of the Fourteenth Amendment. Freedom of speech, itself, is an unalienable right granted by our Creator.
In much the same fashion, the human right to self defense, (as enumerated in the Kalifornia Constitution) includes the right to utilize human tool-making skills to arm oneself suitably to fend off an attack by criminals or tyrannical governments. This right was not created by the Second Amendment nor is it in any way dependent upon it for its continuation.
That the right to keep and bear arms is among the "priveleges and immunities" of free people was explicitly stated by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. Suggesting that lack of more recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing this immunity causes it not to exist, is to grant the Supreme Court the power to create privileges and immunities. There is no such power granted to the Supreme Court.