For Constitutionalists Only!

[BasicGreatGuy]

My con law prof was more like yours, jillian. And BGG would have apoplexy if he knew what my 1st Amendment prof thought.

The power of BGG compels you Gold. Come to the dark side. I have ice cream.

Ice cream? For real? Hmmmm...maybe this "principles" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Ice cream is so much better than cookies alone. We can do battle over ice cream. See, I am a reasonable man.

 

[goldcatt]

The power of BGG compels you Gold. Come to the dark side. I have ice cream.

Ice cream? For real? Hmmmm...maybe this "principles" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Ice cream is so much better than cookies alone. We can do battle over ice cream. See, I am a reasonable man.

As long as we're not doing battle with ice cream. That could be messy.
You're not a reasonable man, you're one of those demons from hell sent to tempt the righteous from the narrow path with offers of irresistable goodies.
BUT....you're good at it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Ice cream? For real? Hmmmm...maybe this "principles" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Ice cream is so much better than cookies alone. We can do battle over ice cream. See, I am a reasonable man.

As long as we're not doing battle with ice cream. That could be messy.
You're not a reasonable man, you're one of those demons from hell sent to tempt the righteous from the narrow path with offers of irresistable goodies.
BUT....you're good at it.

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

 

[goldcatt]

Ice cream is so much better than cookies alone. We can do battle over ice cream. See, I am a reasonable man.

As long as we're not doing battle with ice cream. That could be messy.
You're not a reasonable man, you're one of those demons from hell sent to tempt the righteous from the narrow path with offers of irresistable goodies.
BUT....you're good at it.

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Ah, but Section One of the Amendment itself says it. Unless you don't believe the rights granted in Amendments 1 through 10 are privileges or immunities of United States citizenship?

 

[Arawyn]

Ice cream is so much better than cookies alone. We can do battle over ice cream. See, I am a reasonable man.

As long as we're not doing battle with ice cream. That could be messy.
You're not a reasonable man, you're one of those demons from hell sent to tempt the righteous from the narrow path with offers of irresistable goodies.
BUT....you're good at it.

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

You do know what they call people like you, right?

IMO, the intent, but I don't have my con law book (and I don't currently work in that area and I'm aging, so.....) to refer back to, was incorporation. JMHO

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

As long as we're not doing battle with ice cream. That could be messy.
You're not a reasonable man, you're one of those demons from hell sent to tempt the righteous from the narrow path with offers of irresistable goodies.
BUT....you're good at it.

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

You do know what they call people like you, right?

IMO, the intent, but I don't have my con law book (and I don't currently work in that area and I'm aging, so.....) to refer back to, was incorporation. JMHO

I am sure people have all kinds of names for people like me. I have been called plenty of four letter words tonight. lol How about petulant?

Edited to add: You believe the intent was incorporation of the Bill of Rights? Somebody needs a refresher course. Just sayin'. :whistle:

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

You do know what they call people like you, right?

IMO, the intent, but I don't have my con law book (and I don't currently work in that area and I'm aging, so.....) to refer back to, was incorporation. JMHO

I am sure people have all kinds of names for people like me. I have been called plenty of four letter words tonight. lol How about petulant?

Edited to add: You believe the intent was incorporation of the Bill of Rights? Somebody needs a refresher course. Just sayin'. :whistle:

Then why did they write it in, along with a due process clause that applied specifically to the States?

I'll have the rainbow sprinkles, BTW.

 

[goldcatt]

It's late and I'm off. Enjoyable as always! Even though you're wrong.

Later!

 

[Arawyn]

Yes, I am very good at it.

By the way my legal heathen friend, I have yet to read anything from the debates as well as the legislative intents of the XIV Amendment, that stated the goal of incorporation of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the purpose of the XIV Amendment was to incorporate the first civil right act and nothing more. The Court has taken it upon itself to incorporate several amendments of the Bill of Rights.

You do know what they call people like you, right?

IMO, the intent, but I don't have my con law book (and I don't currently work in that area and I'm aging, so.....) to refer back to, was incorporation. JMHO

I am sure people have all kinds of names for people like me. I have been called plenty of four letter words tonight. lol How about petulant?

Edited to add: You believe the intent was incorporation of the Bill of Rights? Somebody needs a refresher course. Just sayin'. :whistle:

Eeuberily (sp?) comes to mind........but petulant wasn't one of the

Well, it's been about *cry* 3 years since my con law classes........so

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You do know what they call people like you, right?

IMO, the intent, but I don't have my con law book (and I don't currently work in that area and I'm aging, so.....) to refer back to, was incorporation. JMHO

I am sure people have all kinds of names for people like me. I have been called plenty of four letter words tonight. lol How about petulant?

Edited to add: You believe the intent was incorporation of the Bill of Rights? Somebody needs a refresher course. Just sayin'. :whistle:

Then why did they write it in, along with a due process clause that applied specifically to the States?

I'll have the rainbow sprinkles, BTW.

I am not a sprinkles kinda guy. I prefer the warm hot fudge Due process referring to the civil rights act, gold.

Even though Madison was long dead, I believe his words are salient when it comes to this issue.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

It is late goid. We will have to finish our battle tomorrow. I have some studying on Daniel Morgan to do

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

The states make up one nation. Some standards should be applied to every citizen. IMO there are additional standards that could be applied, beyond the first ten amendments. For example, I would be happy to see English made the official language of the country. I believe it was Theodore White who said that language is the glue that holds a country together.

Please list the protections in the Bill of Rights that you would not like to carry with you as you move from one state to another, or that you would rather see mutated in fifty different manifestations.

The Second Amendment give Americans a right that every statistic proves is a positive, not a negative. Yet, liberals the country over, imbued with the ability to tell the rest of us what is best for us, would remove the right to bear arms were it not in the Constitution, even though it has yet to be incorporate. Thus the battle must be fought repeatedly.

Even now, the newest Supreme Court Justice believes that it applies only to the federal government. Liberals, who live by the motto 'feeling is as good as knowing,' would find a constellation of statutes and laws to replace the protections in the Bill of Rights if they are not incorporated.

Lets analyse your position. You don't like the position "liberals" have when it comes to the II Amendment, even though they have the right as citizens of their respective state to petition their government elected to pass restrictions on said right. In an attempt to prevent your fellow Americans from exercising their constitutional rights, both state and federal, you want the Bill of Rights to be incorporated to the federal government, thus removing their rights as citizens of their respective states to redress their government on that matter and other matters.

When you get down the core of your position and the reasoning their of, it isn't about strict adherence to the Constitution in its proper context and adjudication. Your position is an authoritarian one, which seeks to bastardize the Constitution even further.

You speak of equality while promoting an authoritarian partisan hack position. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your position. Your position would do even more damage to the Republic.

There is no need for me to go through the entire list of the Bill of Rights with you. Your position is clear and it is unacceptable. I don't see how anyone who believes in strict constructionism, could agree with your position.

So, you cannot find any of the protections of the Bill of Rights that you would like to see made optional?

That explains my position on incorporation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I view the Constitution, as how a visiting prof during my 1L year put it........it is a dead document meant to bind future generations with its precepts.

lol... i tend to view it like my con law prof taught... as a living document which was supposed to bend with changes in how society views right and wrong... (i.e., slavery, women's sufferage, etc). .. and was sometimes supposed to lead those changes in morality (e.g., civil rights).

but always always as the last bastion of protection of the rights of the minority.

Hahaha.....My (both) con law prof was a lib, this guy was a con, so what can I say? LOL

And I was 36 at the time

Seriously though.....a dead document, as it was put to me, allows changes.....but is more a willow tree than a fox......standing firm and bending when needed, not darting at the first scent on the wind.

How's that for a metaphor?

I hope I may inject a lay opinion here, as I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

I believe that the Constitution should be read just as it is written.

It is not a 'living' document, meant to be changed by interpretation depending on the times or the reader, nor invested with hidden rights.

If the Founders did not intend it to mean what it says, then why did they include specific avenues that allowed for change, i.e. the amendment process?

 

[goldcatt]

I am sure people have all kinds of names for people like me. I have been called plenty of four letter words tonight. lol How about petulant?

Edited to add: You believe the intent was incorporation of the Bill of Rights? Somebody needs a refresher course. Just sayin'. :whistle:

Then why did they write it in, along with a due process clause that applied specifically to the States?

I'll have the rainbow sprinkles, BTW.

I am not a sprinkles kinda guy. I prefer the warm hot fudge Due process referring to the civil rights act, gold.

Even though Madison was long dead, I believe his words are salient when it comes to this issue.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

It is late goid. We will have to finish our battle tomorrow. I have some studying on Daniel Morgan to do

Due process is a constitutional requirement, applied to the Federal government in the 5th Amendment and extended to the States in the 14th.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an Act of Congress, not a constitutional provision.

A constitutional provision should not be confused with the statute enacted under its authority. They are very, very different creatures.

But maybe I'm not being fair, it was late.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Then why did they write it in, along with a due process clause that applied specifically to the States?

I'll have the rainbow sprinkles, BTW.

I am not a sprinkles kinda guy. I prefer the warm hot fudge Due process referring to the civil rights act, gold.

Even though Madison was long dead, I believe his words are salient when it comes to this issue.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

It is late goid. We will have to finish our battle tomorrow. I have some studying on Daniel Morgan to do

Due process is a constitutional requirement, applied to the Federal government in the 5th Amendment and extended to the States in the 14th.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an Act of Congress, not a constitutional provision.

A constitutional provision should not be confused with the statute enacted under its authority. They are very, very different creatures.

But maybe I'm not being fair, it was late.

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

 

[jillian]

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

why do you think that each provision is only intended to address one specific problem?

it was clear, always, that no state could grant fewer constitutional protections than the federal constitution... or else the INTENT of the provision would be perverted by the states and was perverted by the states... with slavery... with jim crow laws.

and THAT is why the need for the amendment.

the constitution is not some fundamentalist bible... there are 200 years of constitutional construction which say so.....

 

[goldcatt]

I am not a sprinkles kinda guy. I prefer the warm hot fudge Due process referring to the civil rights act, gold.

Even though Madison was long dead, I believe his words are salient when it comes to this issue.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

It is late goid. We will have to finish our battle tomorrow. I have some studying on Daniel Morgan to do

Due process is a constitutional requirement, applied to the Federal government in the 5th Amendment and extended to the States in the 14th.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an Act of Congress, not a constitutional provision.

A constitutional provision should not be confused with the statute enacted under its authority. They are very, very different creatures.

But maybe I'm not being fair, it was late.

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

The slaves weren't freed by the 14th Amendment. The 13th contains no due process provision. There were practices other than slavery happening in the States that needed to be addressed, although slavery was the tipping point that made the 14th's provisions possible and more obviously necessary. What is the point of having Federal guarantees of individual liberites if the States could simply take them away at will and with impunity?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

why do you think that each provision is only intended to address one specific problem?

it was clear, always, that no state could grant fewer constitutional protections than the federal constitution... or else the INTENT of the provision would be perverted by the states and was perverted by the states... with slavery... with jim crow laws.

and THAT is why the need for the amendment.

the constitution is not some fundamentalist bible... there are 200 years of constitutional construction which say so.....

I am talking about the incorporation aspect Jillian. The section of the XIV that so many people ( including some courts ) want to use for that manner, is not the purpose of the XIV Amendment, in my opinion. The 14th Amendment was adopted specifically to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate on the basis of race. And who was that predicated on at the time? The freed slaves.

The XIV Amendment also addresses citizenship. I do not see a need to get into the entire XIV Amendment. I don't see how that would be productive. The bottom line is I do not agree with the incorporation theory. I believe that theory to be terrible for the Republic and our Constitution.

Seeing how you believe in a living breathing bend with the times document, we aren't going to agree on this Jillian. We may agree in other areas of the law, but this isn't going to be one of them.

 

[goldcatt]

Then BGG, what do you think "privileges and immunities" of the United States are?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Due process is a constitutional requirement, applied to the Federal government in the 5th Amendment and extended to the States in the 14th.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an Act of Congress, not a constitutional provision.

A constitutional provision should not be confused with the statute enacted under its authority. They are very, very different creatures.

But maybe I'm not being fair, it was late.

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

The slaves weren't freed by the 14th Amendment. The 13th contains no due process provision. There were practices other than slavery happening in the States that needed to be addressed, although slavery was the tipping point that made the 14th's provisions possible and more obviously necessary. What is the point of having Federal guarantees of individual liberites if the States could simply take them away at will and with impunity?

The Constitution does not give us our rights, in my opinion. In my opinion, the Constitution was written primarily to restrict the powers of the federal government not the states. There were freed slaves in 1867, 68, and 69. I didn't say anything about there being no slavery at all at the time the XIV Amendment was ratified. It was, as I said, put forth to address the issue of race and the forbiddance of the federal government from discriminating based on such. And the primary focus was the slaves. More succinctly, those who were free at the time and taking issue with the federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't matter what we all think about "incorporation", only what the SC opines. The Roberts Court will refuse to incorporate further (2nd Amendment decision) but will not overturrn previous decisions.