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.
Odd 'fact'. -- Supposedly Marshall had a -- 'states rights trumped the BOR's' -- view in 1803, because barron wasn't controversial 30 years later?
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.
They were trying to prevent a civil war by so holding. Compromising principle never works.
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.
But all states pledged to honor our Constituton as the supreme law of the land. The BOR's Preamble did not alter this basic principle.
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.
The BOR's was intended to outline individual liberties that were NOT to be infringed by governments in the USofA at any level. -- You are exactly right that the people demanded one.
Odd 'fact'. -- Supposedly Marshall had a -- 'states rights trumped the BOR's' -- view in 1803, because barron wasn't controversial 30 years later?
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.
They were trying to prevent a civil war by so holding. Compromising principle never works.
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.
But all states pledged to honor our Constituton as the supreme law of the land. The BOR's Preamble did not alter this basic principle.
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.
The BOR's was intended to outline individual liberties that were NOT to be infringed by governments in the USofA at any level. -- You are exactly right that the people demanded one.
[something is over-riding my 'italics' commands]