State's Rights

[Contumacious]

. But do gentlemen suppose bills of rights necessary to secure liberty? If they do, let them look at New York, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. Those States have no bills of rights, and is the liberty of the citizens less safe in those States, than in the other of the United States? I believe it is not."

You do realize that that's an argument against your case, right?

From Post 112 wherein you stated


"So historically and legally, all the evidence is on one side of the debate: the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified."


So , the Ninth Amendment argument is one against your case.

Also read the dissenting opinion in the "Dred Scott v. Sandford" -

Justices Curtis and Justice McLean argued, there was no basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in five of the thirteen states. This made them citizens not only of their states but of the United States.

 

[Truman123]

Human rights over states' rights.

 

[Skylar]

So , the Ninth Amendment argument is one against your case.

Obviously it isn't. As the 9th amendment makes no mention of applying to the States. You can't even argue original intent. As no where in the Constitutional Convention or Federalist papers is the idea forwarded that the BOR applied to the States. Or limited the States in anyway unless explicitly stated. The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 amendments. Number 14 read as follows:

14. No state shall infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.

https://www.sethkaller.com/slideshow.php?id=182&t=t-182-001-Ks20650.12_detail_w.jpg

Now Article 10 of this first draft of the Bill of Rights already had provisions for trial by Jury. Article 3 already covered rights of conscience. And Article 4 the right to free speech and the press. If the Bill of Rights was always intended to apply to the States......why in the hell would they list the right to trial by jury, right of conscience, right to free speech and right of the press TWICE each? The second explicitly naming the States?

It makes absolutely no sense. And of course, Patterson refuses to address it. And so do you. Why?

Clearly the 10th amendment provisions for trial by jury didn't apply to the States. Nor did the 3rd's right of conscience. Nor did the 4th's free press or free speech provision. Only an amendment explicitly limiting States in the same manner would apply to the States.

Which is exactly what the USSC found in the tactical nuke of our little debate, the case of Barron V. Baltimore. Where the USSC explicitly takes on the issue. And wipes its ass with your entire argument:

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Barron V. Baltimore

Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

Patterson didn't tell you about that, did he? Of course not. Because 'is not applicable to the legislation of the States' chews up and shits out your entire argument. The courts even describe in detail *why* you're wrong:

These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Barron V. Baltimore

Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

This fact was so universally understood, so completely obvious that Justice Marshall when writing his decision actually gets a little flippant about it.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty."

Barron V. Baltimore
Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

Which is about as close as a Supreme Court Justice of the 1830s will get to saying "Muthafucka, please!".

Demonstrating undeniable, as a point of historical fact and legal precedent that the Bill of Rights did not apply before the adoption of the 14th amendment.

For crying out loud, John Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th amendment actually read the Barron V. Baltimore decision on the House floor when describing why the 14th amendment was necessary.

"A gentleman on the other side interrupted me and wanted to know if I could cite a decision showing that the power of the Federal Government to enforce in the United States courts the bill of rights under the artcles of amendment of amendment to the Constitution had been denied. I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions and that it is exactly what makes plane the necessity of adopting this amendment.

Speaker on this subject I refer the House and the country to the decision in the Supreme Court, to be found in 7 Peters 247, in the case of Barron vs. the Mayor and City of Council of Baltimore, involving the question whether the provisions of the fifth article of the amendment to the Constitution are binding upon the State of Maryland and to be enforced in the Federal Courts. The Chief Justice says:

"The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States."....

.....As to the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, they must be put out of the case, since it is now settled that those amendments do not extend to the States; "

Congressman John Bingham

Congressional Record, 39th Congress, 1st session, pg 1089 and 1090

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

Because the Bill of Rights *didn't* apply to the States. And never did until after the 14th's adoption. The USSC knew it. The writers of the 14th knew it. History records it.

 

[Skylar]

Human rights over states' rights.

I agree.

 

[rightwinger]

I have found that States Rights are opposed more often by those on the political left. This is due to many factors. The most prevalent of those is that liberals tend to depend on government or at least look to the central government for support or to address their grievances with existing legislation or the very act of legislation being the supreme method by which laws are written and implemented.
Most of liberalism's victories have been won through redress rather than in the People's House

It all comes down to where is the most efficient place to perform a government function. Many government functions are done at the local level. Others are at the county or state level. Many need to be done at the federal level. We don't want 50 states setting up programs that can be done once at the federal level.

But libertarians are caught up in absolutism. It is not doing what makes sense but avoiding the evil federal government at all costs

 

[JakeStarkey]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

 

[Listening]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

 

[g5000]

so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.

It is your "proof" which is utterly corrupt.

Here is a list of Supreme Court decisions related to the Second Amendment:

United States v. Cruikshank

Presser v. Illionois

Miller v. Texas

Robertson v. Baldwin

District of Columbia v. Heller (a landmark decision which overturned a ban on personal handguns)

McDonald v. Chicago (The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

And you, my dear, are a far right progressive as well, arguing for small government until you want big government to protect your beliefs.

Why don't you just admit you are a progressive?

 

[g5000]

I agree with those who have said the meaning of the commerce clause has been stretched by the US Supreme Court to the point where there are no longer any limits on federal government powers. And that is grossly unsatisfactory.

That does not prove a bigot to be correct in his or her opinion that it is okay to oppress someone just because they don't like them, however.

 

[Listening]

I agree with those who have said the meaning of the commerce clause has been stretched by the US Supreme Court to the point where there are no longer any limits on federal government powers. And that is grossly unsatisfactory.

That does not prove a bigot to be correct in his or her opinion that it is okay to oppress someone just because they don't like them, however.

Bigots are free to do as they want within their sphere of control. Sorry...but that is a reality.

Refusing to do business with someone is not "oppressing" them.

 

[Listening]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

And you, my dear, are a far right progressive as well, arguing for small government until you want big government to protect your beliefs.

Why don't you just admit you are a progressive?

Whoever is paying you is getting ripped off.

 

[Listening]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

And you, my dear, are a far right progressive as well, arguing for small government until you want big government to protect your beliefs.

Why don't you just admit you are a progressive?

Government does not need to protect my beliefs since my beliefs are my own. Government is not to interfere with the practice of my beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone else. Putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is no different than flying the American Flag.

Suck on it.

 

[Skylar]

Government does not need to protect my beliefs since my beliefs are my own. Government is not to interfere with the practice of my beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone else. Putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is no different than flying the American Flag.

If your beliefs are your own....why would you need them in front of a courthouse?

 

[Listening]

Government does not need to protect my beliefs since my beliefs are my own. Government is not to interfere with the practice of my beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone else. Putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is no different than flying the American Flag.

If your beliefs are your own....why would you need them in front of a courthouse?

Who said the ten commandments were my beliefs.

I could just as easily say that putting the Koran in front of a courthouse is the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

Who said the ten commandments were my beliefs.

They're clearly somebody's. Else they wouldn't be fighting to hard to put them up in a public space. If they're personal, what's the need?

 

[Contumacious]

So , the Ninth Amendment argument is one against your case.

Obviously it isn't. As the 9th amendment makes no mention of applying to the States. You can't even argue original intent. As no where in the Constitutional Convention or Federalist papers is the idea forwarded that the BOR applied to the States. Or limited the States in anyway unless explicitly stated. The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 amendments. Number 14 read as follows:
.

Let me see if I understand your position.

You are saying that , for example, Founding Father Patrick Henry objected to the FEDERAL government transgressing upon his rights but had no objection if the State of Virginia tyrannize him, is that right?

.

 

[Skylar]

You are saying that , for example, Founding Father Patrick Henry objected to the FEDERAL government transgressing upon his rights but had no objection if the State of Virginia tyrannize him, is that right?

You're referring to the famous 'give me liberty or give me death' speech? If so, check the dates.

As for being 'tyrannized by Virginia', Virginia had its own Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously in 1776. Virginia's Declaration of Rights, like the Virginia Constitution, applied to Virginia. The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, applied to the Federal government.

The only caveat is that there were a handful of instances in the US Constitution where restrictions were placed on the States. But every restriction was explicitly enumerated.

And I noticed you avoided the Barron V. Baltimore case, the first draft of the Bill of Rights, and the reading of the Barron ruling on the House floor by Congressman John Bingham.

They're pretty hard to argue against, aren't they?

 

[Listening]

Who said the ten commandments were my beliefs.

They're clearly somebody's. Else they wouldn't be fighting to hard to put them up in a public space. If they're personal, what's the need?

Because they have an influence on the law.

Or maybe murder should not be a capital crime....after all....you can rely on the fact that not killing is a personal belief of so many.

 

[Wolfstrike]

people of today can't understand the concept of freedom.
the founders were more quiet about state's control because it wasn't a concern.
you were on your farm with your gun and there was no state or federal force to kick your door in, unless there was a war. remember, the founders didn't want a standing army.
the founders envisioned a nation where people would focus on their local government.
free speech, gun rights, can only be individual rights ("the people"), there is no other possibility.
the federal government was the concern.