Replies

>> If we were to take the broadest possible interpretation of “liberty”, as you seem to be doing, then both the state and federal governments would be restricted from enacting and enforcing any law that restricts a person’s ability to do something. For instance, a state would be forbidden from making it illegal to park in a red zome, because that infringes on a person’s liberty without due process.

This is the most ridiculous straw man I’ve ever seen. Applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th amendment would not disallow making parking laws. The Bill of Rights does not include a right to park wherever you please.

The government is allowed to restrict a great many things, particularly State governments. However, those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed ... and NO government, Federal, State or Local, has the power to tread on those rights.

According to your flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment, a State government - via an act of the state legislature - would theoretically have the power to ...

(1) seize all firearms ... as the right to keep and bear arms would be a federal right only, [if yours were truly a proper interpretation, there are SEVERAL states which would seize all firearms tomorrow];
(2) arrest peaceful protesters (only a federal right to free speech);
(3) restrict political speech on websites such as this (federal free speech only);
(4) randomly search the homes of its citizens without probable cause or a warrant (restrictions on searches & seizures would be federal only);
(5) torture criminals (bans on cruel and unusual punishment would be federal only);
(6) establish a compulsory state religion (establishment clause is federal only);
(7) jail practicioners of any religion OTHER than the state religion (free expression clause is federal only);
(8) seize private property for public use with no compensation (think eminent domain, but without the necessity of actually paying for the property ... we’d have several communist states on our hands);
(9) engage in double jeopardy in trials;
(10) force accused criminals to testify against themselves;
(11) try accused criminals without an indictment;
(12) throw people in jail without any legal process ... no right to a speedy or public trial;

... etc. ...

However, because the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to State governments ... no State government is permitted to do ANY of these things. Luckily, the Supreme Court, and the VAST majority of the country, disagrees with your fatally flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

I am not applying the “broadest possible interpretation” of the word liberty to restrict the government from making any laws ... and I never stated or implied any such reasoning. I am applying the interpretation of the word “liberty” which is used in the 5th amendment ... an interpretation which states that the definition of “liberty”, as used in the 5th and 14th, necessarily includes the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.

As I stated before, I concede that what you describe IS the standing interpretation of the 14tgh amendment, meaning that the SCOTUS has, indeed, declared that the 14th means that states are bound by the Bill of Rights. I hope we can now move past that. I, however, for all of the previous posts, have been arguing that this interpretation of the 14th is incorrect. You subsequently have been telling me that my interpretaton of the 14th is incorrect because it does not match the standing interpretation. And round and round we go.

The word "liberty" is used but not defined in neither in the 14th amendment, nor the 5th. It is, therefore, subject to interpretation by the Court. The cleanest definition of the word "liberty", as has been used since the country's founding, is physical and perhaps spiritual freedom (from political imprisonment, for example). Only an extremely broad definition of the word "liberty" would include the right to engage in such activities as, say, buying/selling/viewing pornography. Yet your claim is that because the word "liberty" appears in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th, that somehow a state's ability to restrict pornography is somehow forbidden.

As for your assertion that, without the current standing interpretation of the 14th in place, States would then be free to infringe on all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, you are entirely incorrect. You have forgotten that each state, as a condition of statehood, must have a state constitution and, within each state constitution, you'll generally find an enumeration of protected rights that mirror the federal Bill of Rights.

My question to you is: if the federal Constitution were intended, originally, to restrict State behavior, why would there be the need for such redundancy? Why would the States even bother to have a constitution? The answer is that the States originally were under no such restriction, and that was by design. The federal government was never meant to be lord and master over the state and local governments, but with the standing, overreaching interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it is.

The only reason that the 14th Amendment restricts State rights is because the Supreme Court says it does. It is not written that way, nor do I believe it was intended to do any such thing. It was originally intended to protect newly freed blacks from having their citizenship rights taken away by former slave states who were using grandfather clauses to keep blacks down. However, the Supreme Court saw an opportunity to usurp power from the States and hand it to the federal government by saying that the 14th Amendment is now a tool by which the federal government can micromanage state and local governments. The result is the federal government telling a local public office, for example, that they cannot display a cross, or teh Ten Commandments, or telling local public schools that they can't celebrate Christmas. That is what the flawed interpretation of the 14th has wrought.