But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition.
Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty.
In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.
These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States.
These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. "
Notice Marshall's weasel wording qualifier, -"these amemdments"-. ---
The BOR's amendments themselves need no such 'indicators', as the supremacy clause make clear that the States are bound to honor ALL of the constitution as the Law of the Land. Marshall was trying to hold the union together with his erroneous 1833 Barron decision.
His decision gave credence to the states rightists efforts to ignore our BOR's protections, necessitating the passage of the 14th amendment to end the controversy.
-- Needless to say, those who value State power over individual rights are still among us, subverting our most basic principle of personal liberty.
Why they are so obsessed is a true mystery. Can you explain it? -292- Mrs mith, your inablity to comment on my rebuttal to your defense of 'Barron', or to answer my question, are duly noted.