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

To: tpaine
Socalled 'conservatives' want states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty

Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left? How has the 14th returned your 2nd amendment rights in California? Are you in fact a fan of big Federal government?

38 posted on 05/04/2002 1:20:05 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Texasforever
Socalled 'conservatives' WANT states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty

Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left?

Honoring individual liberty doesn't advance federalism, or leftist causes. That's 'tar baby' debate.

How has the 14th returned your 2nd amendment rights in California?

It hasn't yet, but I have high hopes that the USSC will be forced to 'incorporate' the 2nd, by using their own logic.

Are you in fact a fan of big Federal government?

Stupid question. --- Nope, the opposite. -- A fan of the constitution, a very libertarian document.

And, -- seeing it's stupid time in texas, I'm going to bed.

39 posted on 05/04/2002 1:49:29 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: Texasforever
Socalled 'conservatives' want states to have the power to ignore the constitution. They are Rino statists, not true conservatives who honor individual liberty

Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left?

Because the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were, for whatever reason, unwilling to actually make clear what was and was not supposed to be prohibitted thereby.

Consider the First Amendment and the issues of libel, slander, etc. The First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." didn't need to define any exceptions for such things, because they don't fall under Congress' jurisdiction. The only thing that might have fallen under Congress' jurisdiction which might have tweaked the First Amendment would have been interstate advertising (which would have existed even in 1789, though not nearly to the extent it does today). Even there, Congress' action would be primarily to ensure that someone who advertises a product for 10 cents actually delivers it for that price, rather than concerning itself with the advertisement per se.

The application of "First-Amendment" freedoms against the states, however, poses new wrinkles. Since states are, it would seem, not to be forbidden from enforcing laws against libel and slander, it becomes necessary to have exceptions to freedom of the press/speech/etc. Unfortunately, nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gives any clue as to what those exceptions are or should be.

It is truly unfortunate that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't bother to specify specifically what states were and were not forbidden from doing. Perhaps they couldn't agree on it, so everyone involved figured that they'd write something vague and hope courts decided things their way later on. Unfortunately, that sort of legislative laziness nearly always causes problems down the road.

47 posted on 05/04/2002 7:32:00 AM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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