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

To: inquest
"I can guarantee you he would have ruled the same way in 1803."


Based on what facts?
14 posted on 03/17/2003 8:01:05 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Based on the fact that there was no controversy of any significance surrounding the Barron decision. This would indicate that the vast majority of Marshall's compatriots, both in and out of the legal profession, shared his view as to the scope of the Bill of Rights.

It's a view consistent with the Preamble to the same, which stated that it was passed "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution's] powers", which would mean federal powers, since the states don't get their powers from the U.S. Constitution. It's also consistent with the reason why the BOR was passed: namely, because the people were afraid that this new federal experiment would be too large and too distant to be controlled by them. They weren't looking for protection from their own state governments. You'll notice that the Articles of Confederation didn't contain a bill of rights. It was only after the Constitution was passed that the people demanded one.

16 posted on 03/18/2003 9:45:12 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | 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