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

To: Publius Valerius
This is the idea of Federalism--South Carolina isn't enslaving anyone and they haven't put up guards at the border to keep people from leaving.

So by your logic, all laws are restricting freedoms are valid as long as it doesn't involve slavery?

There are limits. Would you have a problem if South Carolina proposed nightly inspections to make sure that there were no illegal activities going on? Without the 14th amendment this would be perfectly legal. And without the 14th amendment, every state would eventually institute it.

86 posted on 04/23/2006 9:01:33 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: JeffAtlanta

No, I wouldn't have a problem with that. First off, I think incorporation is bogus--I don't buy that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the Bill of Rights--it's not in the legislative history and it simply wasn't the purpose to the amendment.

Again, if the people don't like it, they can vote at the ballot box or vote with their feet. There's no reason why, if the People of South Carolina didn't like the police doing nightly searches, they couldn't outlaw them.

When our nation was created, the Founders understood that states were the protectors of rights--and unfortunately, because of the incorporation doctrine, people have become lazy about protecting their rights; they just let judges try and do it for them. I think one could argue, forcefully, that the 14th Amendment has eroded liberty more than advanced it.


87 posted on 04/23/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | 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