clampdaddy wrote:assateague wrote:Actually, that isn't true at all. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states. The Constitution is only a governing document for the FEDERAL government. You should read it "shall not be infringed BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT". It only applies to them, and until around 1870, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The "passage" of the 14th amendment is what really let the feds into everything.....
Interesting. So prior to1870 a state could legally deprive its citizens of the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. with no fear of recourse coming down from the federal level?
It would depend on their state constitution. But yes, that's exactly it. The rights protected in the Constitution are only protected from the federal government. It had nothing to do with states, and was intended to specifically state what they could or could not do. It wasn't about individual rights. The states were the ones who said "ok, we can live with that" before ratifying it, which pretty much tells you that they were in the driver's seat. The states created the federal government, not the other way around, but now we are seeing the governmental version of Frankenstein's monster, the creation overtaking the creator.
As for the applicability to the states, it was commonly accepted that Bill of Rights was not intended to impact their laws/society/whatever. While I'm no fan of what the Supreme Court has become, here are a couple examples, to show I'm not talking out of my ass:
The Bill of Rights was originally written to apply only to the actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was the first to contain prohibitions on the actions of states.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/amendments/fourteenth-amendment-general/incorporation/From Barron v Baltimore
Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1833/1833_0From US v Cruikshank
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=92&invol=542From the Slaughterhouse Cases
The Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause (of the 14th amendment) protected only certain narrow federal rights (such as the right to travel, to petition Congress, and to vote in national elections), not the protections found in the Bill of Rights.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/landmark-cases/incorporation/And this sort of thing goes on and on. But yet the 14th amendment allowed them to slowly creep into our lives, overstepping their constitutional bounds. And like I said, the 14th Amendment was not legally introduced or ratified. It was basically extorted. After the war, the northern states wanted it passed, as it protected the right of slaves. But the southern states didn't. And it required a 3/4 majority to ratify, and with the "no" votes of the southern states, it wouldn't pass. So the federal government dissolved the legislatures (the legally elected legislatures, I might add) in several southern states, and appointed military governors. These military governors then either appointed legislators who would vote to ratify the amendment. Hence, you have this crap we have now. That's it in a nutshell.
As for the Supreme Court, the Constitution says this:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Nowhere does it say the Supreme Court gets to decide whether Hootnanny, Mississippi may have a copy of the 10 Commandments hanging on the wall outside the county clerk's office.
never mind- just saw your other post.
