"Indeed, since, by the unvarying decisions of this court, the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action, there was nowhere else to look up to the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and the state, at least until then, might give, modify, or withhold the privilege at its will. The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise. There is no doubt of the duty of this court to enforce the limitations and restraints whenever they exist, and there has been no hesitation in the performance of the duty. But, whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state, so necessary to the perpetuity of our dual form of government, and changes its relation to its people and to the Union." -- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
"...the first ten Amendments of the Federal Constitution are restrictive only of national action..."
"...The 14th Amendment withdrew from the states powers theretofore enjoyed by them to an extent not yet fully ascertained, or rather, to speak more accurately, limited those powers and restrained their exercise..."
"..whenever a new limitation or restriction is declared, it is a matter of grave import, since, to that extent, it diminishes the authority of the state..."
-- TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)
******************
Here's what I get from that decision, Roscoe.
State governments are allowed to deny trial by jury, to deny self-defence, to deny free speech, to deny religious freedom, and to deny protest of any kind.
Any State may use torture on it's citizens? Any State can arrest people without cause?
I believe that decision to be flawed.