Replies

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.

>> 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.

I have not, at all, forgotten that. Whether the State has exercised its power to revoke the rights of its citizens is entirely irrelevant in an argument about whether they SHOULD have the power to do so. The fact would remain that a state legislature would have the authority to not recognize, or repeal a right in its own Constitution ... and thus would, under your interpretation, be under no obligation to recognize the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Lets take the right to keep and bear arms, for example. I have browsed the California Constitution, and cannot find a right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the California Constitution.

Is it your position that the State of California is permitted, with the approval of its legislature and governor, to prohibit the sale and ownership of firearms within its borders, and forcibly confiscate all weapons at its discretion?

If your answer is “yes” ... then at least you’re consistent. Entirely wrong, but consistent. The NRA would probably like to have a word with you, though.

If your answer is “no” ... why not? Under your interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 2nd Amendment is a wholly federal right. If a State’s Constitution does not further guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, upon an act of the state legislature, California should be entirely within its rights in forcibly confiscating every gun in the state.

I’d bet you would think California confiscating every gun is a violation of the Constitutional rights of its citizens - and you’d be right. However, you seem to think California would be perfectly within its rights to ban the sale of pornography. In which case, you’re cherry-picking the rights which you believe a State should be federally forced to recognize.

I think they should be - and, in fact, are - federally forced to recognize each of the rights in the Bill of Rights ... including both the right to bear arms, and the right to freedom of speech.

>> 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?

This is a two part answer ...

(1) I’d omit the word “originally” in your question. The federal Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. I’ve been very clear on this point. Thus, your question would only apply to those 13 States whose Constitutions were enacted AFTER the ratification of the 14th amendment.

(2) State Constitutions Bill of Rights, even if redundant, have a couple of purposes beyond merely recognizing the rights ... and those purposes would exist regardless of whether the State were forced to abide by federal rights. First, the presence of a State Bill of Rights creates a State cause of action for violations of those rights - allowed to be litigated in state court. Second, and probably more importantly ... States are fully permitted to (and often do) expand on those rights enumerated in the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions allow the State government to set boundaries on liberties in excess of federal boundaries ... States are simply not allowed to contract or contradict any federally recognized rights.

>> 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.

The 14th amendment was written to rectify slavery issues, and to prevent any future ignoring of the Constitutional rights of individuals, regardless of race, by State 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.

Distorted intepretations of the 1st amendment, as applied to the States as well as the Federal government, cannot be blamed on a correct interpretation of the 14th. It is the interpretation of the 1st amendment, in those cases, which is erroneous.