[tpaine]

The priviliges & immunities clause was being violated by states after the civil war, - [IE -- former slaves were being denied the right to own guns] - under the mistaken Marshal Court doctrine that the first ten amendments only limited the federal government.
The 14th was ratified to correct this flaw, and by further defining that the rights included those to 'life, liberty, or property', in effect expanded/defined the meaning of 'unenumerated rights' as per the 9th.
79 posted by tpaine

---

General re, however, makes a good point. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 9th functioned primaraly as a bulwhark against the federal government. With the 14th in place, the 9th could just as easily be used to create a federal right (such as gay marriage), and then an activist court could ram that new right down the throats of the states with the 14th. - dirtboy

---

Fed right? - You mean constitutional right. - The USSC has no power to 'ram' any rights down throats .
States can, and should, fight their case, and if an obviously unconstitutional decision is made against them, use civil disobedience methods to force the issue.

That they do not shows a failure in our political system, not of the constitution.

[general_re]

You mean constitutional right. - The USSC has no power to 'ram' any rights down throats .

They do if the 9'th is revived and used in conjunction with the 14'th.

States can, and should, fight their case, and if an obviously unconstitutional decision is made against them, use civil disobedience methods to force the issue.

That's been tried before. It generally doesn't work out well for the states that attempt it ;)