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

Skip to comments.

The Founders' Intent for the First Amendment
CPI News ^ | May 3, 2002 | Nathan McClintock

Posted on 05/03/2002 6:28:44 PM PDT by NathanM

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: edsheppa
...the author of that article I linked definitely thinks that substantive due process is based on an interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th.

And I'm not disputing that point (at least not here, anyway). It's true that it looks like I was disputing it earlier, but that's because I had misunderstood what you were getting at (which I agree was my fault). What I'm saying (now that I do understand your point) is that substantive due process doesn't seem to cover the rest of the bill of rights. It doesn't, in and of itself, mean that the state can't do what the first amendment prohibits the federal government from doing.

21 posted on 05/06/2002 8:16:04 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
...the founders were wise enough (the second time around) to make it possible to amend the constitution and thereby change the law of the land - even is ways of which they might disapprove.

Agreed.

22 posted on 05/06/2002 8:17:57 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I'd have to be shown that. From what I've read it appears the SC has extended first amendment prohibitions to the states. Do you have an example in which the SC has allowed state regulation of speech or religion in a way it has denied the federal gov't?
23 posted on 05/06/2002 9:31:22 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Do you have an example in which the SC has allowed state regulation of speech or religion in a way it has denied the federal gov't?

I thought I did but I don't. When I went to look, I found that I had been more confused that I thought. I had always heard that it was the "privileges and immunities" clause that the courts cited in imposing the BOR on the states, but you're right, it does look to be the substantive due process doctrine. Thanks for the heads up. I'm glad we had this conversation.

24 posted on 05/06/2002 12:02:45 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I have more information on the 14th Amendment, which I will publish in next week's column. To some, it may be rather surprising! Also, I have current examples of SC that "violate" the Fed Constitution. All that and more, soon. I will post links to the articles on this thread.
25 posted on 05/06/2002 5:18:25 PM PDT by NathanM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NathanM
Be looking forward to it. Thanks.
26 posted on 05/06/2002 6:21:58 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: inquest
The 14th Amendment Column...

Faulty Foundation of the 14th Amendment
27 posted on 05/13/2002 7:28:20 PM PDT by CPI News
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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