Poly Sci and Rights.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I learned in my poly sci class that, orginallly, the Bill of Rights never applied to the people according to States, so the states could do whatever they wanted. Only the Federal Government couldn't violate the Rights in the Bill.

However, this changed (theoretcially) according to the 14th amendment, but the courts again set precedent by striking down cases that came before it.

Since 1897, the only way States were forced to honour the bill of rights was through court actions, and slowly, they have been validating rights both in and outside of the constitution, however, there are about 2 left, which have not yet been forced onto the States.

So far, the process has only gone on to about 1972, and then it stopped.

[Alyrium Denryle]

according the letter of the law, that is bullshit. As the state constitutions were required to coincide with the federal constitution. And the supremacy clause...

[RedImperator]

The general interpretation of the Constitution prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment was that it only applied to the states where it specifically mentioned them, and where the Federal government was granted some specific power that would bring the supremacy clause into play. The 14th fundamentally altered the relationship between the Federal government, the Constitution, the states, and the citizenry, though it took most of a century for that interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th to develop.

Keep in mind many state constitutions mirror the Federal one, or even go beyond it, when it comes to protecting individual rights.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

according the letter of the law, that is bullshit. As the state constitutions were required to coincide with the federal constitution. And the supremacy clause...

That's the problem. The opposite is actually how the US has been run for hundred or so plus years.

I forget the exact court case, but even after the 14th amendment was passed, the Supreme Court didn't accept all of the rights in the Bill of Rights as applicable to the States. There are still states now which can violate the bill of rights and not be held accountable, since there are various rights that haven't been "proofed" in their sense.

I have com eto the conclusion that the State (as in the general government) can do whatever it likes, as long as it interprets a law a certain way,and there ain't a think anyone can do about it.

And the supremacy clause

The supremacy clause, according to my C-Law books, only applies in cases of Concurrent Powers or in cases in which powers have been directly allocated to the FEderal Government. Nothing in the constituation prior to the 14th amendment forced the States to comply with the BoR, and they weren't violating Federal Supremacy. It says that Congress may not do....not States. This was the case untill the vaunted (yet largely ineffective 14th amendment)


This changed, however, after the 14th amendment, which stated that States must comply with the provisions in the Bill of Rights (more or less), however...

The 14th amendment was signed into effect, I believe, in 1868, but it was quickly followed by several other court cases in the next 10-20 years. In 1875, SCOTUS declared that:

1. The enforcement clause of the 14th amendment was limited to correction actions taken by states in their official acts.

As well, they decided that the process for transmitting Bill of RIghts liberties to State responsibility was a gradual, case-by-case process. As I mentioned earlier, it began in 1897 and continued untill 1972.

Apparently,the consensus by the courts is that the United States government, according to the founding fathers, wasn't a spectator sport, and if you want to have your rights respected by the STates, you need to be activists, as get court precedents set for each right enumerated and not-enumerated.

Now, I don't think this is moral , but it's the way the US works. YOu don't actually have any STate respect to the bill of rights, even with the 14th amendment, becase it's entirely up to the interpretation and validation of the Court.

If i believe correctly, my notes state that the two remaining cases to be heard, based on the bill of rights, is the RIght to Bear arms and quatering of soldiers. The chart at the back of the books shows them as never being validated under the 14th amendment.


As Red says, however, there is a catch. Most of the STates had their own bills of rights which were very similiar to those of the Federal Bill of Rights, but this wasn't always the case. Up untill the 20th century, some states wouldn't allow certain "rights" that were allowed in other cases.

He's aslo very right. It took a looooooooong ass time to develop, up untill the civil rights movement, but the casees continued on even past the CIvil RIghts acts, untill 1972, when they validated I think 2 more Rights, forcing states to respect them.

HOpefully, we can soon get the rest of them. Need more activists.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That's what it is: THe principle behind all of this otherwise nonsense is

Incorporation theory, derrived from the Slaughterhouse cause, in which the supreme court stated that the 14th amendment didn't apply to the states either.

In modern society, there is still a holdover, as to the knowledge of my texts, the doctrine was never eliminated. That's why there is such a fuss over the Second Amendment.

[Axis Kast]

Keep in mind many state constitutions mirror the Federal one, or even go beyond it, when it comes to protecting individual rights.

Not at first, however. See Barron v. Baltimore.

[Joe]

Keep in mind many state constitutions mirror the Federal one, or even go beyond it, when it comes to protecting individual rights.

Not at first, however. See Barron v. Baltimore.

Beat me to the punch. In Barron v. Baltimore John Marshall said about as clearly as it can be said that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

[Elfdart]

Ask your poly-sci teacher if states could have changed their constitutions and passed laws allowing policemen to burn people at the stake without due process.

The notion that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government is nonsense. Article 6 should spell that much out.

[Joe]

Well, John Marshall, hardly one of the great champions of states' rights, thought so, and his interpretation stood for years.

And the 1st Amendment completely fails the test, even with Article 6. It says that Congress shall make no law...how can it possibly be inferred that an amendment explicitly limiting the power of Congress was also meant to be applied to the states?

[Joe]

Well, John Marshall, hardly one of the great champions of states' rights, thought so, and his interpretation stood for years.

And the 1st Amendment completely fails the test, even with Article 6. It says that Congress shall make no law...how can it possibly be inferred that an amendment explicitly limiting the power of Congress was also meant to be applied to the states? It is only through 20th Century jurisprudence that it is so.

[Joe]

Fuck, delete the first post (I know I'm a mod, but I can't get to the post deletion button).

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Ask your poly-sci teacher if states could have changed their constitutions and passed laws allowing policemen to burn people at the stake without due process.

The notion that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government is nonsense. Article 6 should spell that much out.

Remember what I wrote above? MOst of the Bill of Rights ARE applied to the States. NOW. They didn't apply prior to the 14 amendment, and even AFTER the 14th amendment, they didn't apply. It took over 100 years for them to force the states to apply most of them.


According to Main, I believe, they had on the books that a catholic couldn't be in government or something, and that was well into the 19th century.

Oringally, the Bill of Rights only did apply to the Federal Government.

[Rogue 9]

According to Main, I believe, they had on the books that a catholic couldn't be in government or something, and that was well into the 19th century.

Ironically enough, that likely stems at least partially from the following passage of the 1772 document The Rights of the Colonists, prepared for a Boston town meeting by Samuel Adams:

Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

[Elfdart]

Ask your poly-sci teacher if states could have changed their constitutions and passed laws allowing policemen to burn people at the stake without due process.

The notion that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government is nonsense. Article 6 should spell that much out.

Remember what I wrote above? MOst of the Bill of Rights ARE applied to the States. NOW. They didn't apply prior to the 14 amendment, and even AFTER the 14th amendment, they didn't apply. It took over 100 years for them to force the states to apply most of them.

I meant before the 14th was passed.

According to Main, I believe, they had on the books that a catholic couldn't be in government or something, and that was well into the 19th century.

First, that law might have been passed before the Bill of Rights was ratified. Second, and more importantly: Politicians flouted the Constitution back then, too. The Alien and Sedition Act comes to mind.