The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

[Nutz]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

Supreme Court cases are nonsense? If you believe that why would you believe anything based on what the Court has ruled?

There were these arguments you are denying and the US Supreme Court was asked to rule. Is it more important to you to deal with facts or with feelings?

Case?

post #17

A dissenting opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Dissenting opinion? Make your point!

Did the *Founders intend for a state to be able to take property without compensation?

 

[Nutz]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Dissenting opinion? Make your point!

Did the *Founders intend for a state to be able to take property without compensation?

Wait...lets finish your game. Why did you present a dissenting opinion as valid case law?

And we still need to get to your point...your ultimate question or gotcha moment has gotta be close, because you have effectively begun to bore me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

Supreme Court cases are nonsense? If you believe that why would you believe anything based on what the Court has ruled?

There were these arguments you are denying and the US Supreme Court was asked to rule. Is it more important to you to deal with facts or with feelings?

Case?

post #17

A dissenting opinion.

a Majority opinion by the Marshall Court Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Dissenting opinion? Make your point!

Did the *Founders intend for a state to be able to take property without compensation?

Wait...lets finish your game. Why did you present a dissenting opinion as valid case law?

And we still need to get to your point...your ultimate question or gotcha moment has gotta be close, because you have effectively begun to bore me.

sequence of events: The Marshall Court rules. The 14th becomes law. A dissenting opinion highlights this and get this -- later upheld to have been the more just opinion.

So do you cherry pick your opinions? If so you are still using the Court's rulings

Do you believe in Judicial Review? If no, how do you choose what to guide you?

 

[Nutz]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Dissenting opinion? Make your point!

Did the *Founders intend for a state to be able to take property without compensation?

Wait...lets finish your game. Why did you present a dissenting opinion as valid case law?

And we still need to get to your point...your ultimate question or gotcha moment has gotta be close, because you have effectively begun to bore me.

sequence of events: The Marshall Court rules. The 14th becomes law. A dissenting opinion highlights this and get this -- later upheld to have been the more just opinion.

So do you cherry pick your opinions? If so you are still using the Court's rulings

Do you believe in Judicial Review? If no, how do you choose what to guide you?

I am trying to get you to your point without playing the games. You have taken what could have been an interesting discussion and turned it into USMB nonsense. I thought you were better than that.

 

[Nutz]

What would you like to discuss?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?
...

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

...

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for an individual state to take property without compensation?

Why can't members like Nutz answer without using what appears to be a fallacious statement or purposefully using an ignorant understanding of what is being asked?

 

[Nutz]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?
...

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

...

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for an individual state to take property without compensation?

Why can't members like Nutz answer without using what appears to be a fallacious statement or purposefully using an ignorant understanding of what is being asked?

Again, what would you like to discuss? Don't you think you are attempting an unfair, juvenile exercise to have people answer your questions without knowing the point you are trying to make. It is a flawed tactic of debate as justified logic becomes logic justified.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If people are going to keep using arguments based on what the *Founders thought, meant, said, wanted, while ignoring later amendments, where are we headed?

If people do not get a simple not complex question about Constitution protections during the times/era of the *Founders -- geesh.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?
...

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

...

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for an individual state to take property without compensation?

Why can't members like Nutz answer without using what appears to be a fallacious statement or purposefully using an ignorant understanding of what is being asked?

Again, what would you like to discuss? Don't you think you are attempting an unfair, juvenile exercise to have people answer your questions without knowing the point you are trying to make. It is a flawed tactic of debate as justified logic becomes logic justified.

You're projecting way too much with rants about 'gotcha' threads and posts. The thread is about
The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights.

The thread was started with the obvious intent (if skullduggery projection is left home) of finding out what people believe and know about the issues

 

[Nutz]

If people are going to keep using arguments based on what the *Founders thought, meant, said, wanted, while ignoring later amendments, where are we headed?

If people do not get a simple not complex question about Constitution protections during the times/era of the *Founders -- geesh.

People will always use the *Founders argument and people will always use the "Living Document" argument. I don't think either argument should be diminished because they are both valid. That is what is great about out Constitution and Republic...we are able to consider universal and contemporary factors to interpret law and the vision of our forefathers.

 

[Dekster]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If people are going to keep using arguments based on what the *Founders thought, meant, said, wanted, while ignoring later amendments, where are we headed?

If people do not get a simple not complex question about Constitution protections during the times/era of the *Founders -- geesh.

People will always use the *Founders argument and people will always use the "Living Document" argument. I don't think either argument should be diminished because they are both valid. That is what is great about out Constitution and Republic...we are able to consider universal and contemporary factors to interpret law and the vision of our forefathers.

One point was the Founders who won out, never intended the Bill of Rights to restrict state governments. Think about that next time somebody appeals to their beliefs, wisdom, and ideals. I make no value judgement on it. Just state the fact. Why? Because it can be used to expose the folly of others

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

 

[Dekster]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

You need to make up your mind what you are asking then if you want to have a discussion. Your OP asks about what the framer's intended, not what the Supreme Court ruled 44 years later.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

You need to make up your mind what you are asking then if you want to have a discussion. Your OP asks about what the framer's intended, not what the Supreme Court ruled 44 years later.

The Founders asked the Supreme Court to rule. They agreed to abide by the ruling

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

You need to make up your mind what you are asking then if you want to have a discussion. Your OP asks about what the framer's intended, not what the Supreme Court ruled 44 years later.

The Marshall Court did not rule 44 years later

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

 

[Dekster]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

You need to make up your mind what you are asking then if you want to have a discussion. Your OP asks about what the framer's intended, not what the Supreme Court ruled 44 years later.

The Marshall Court did not rule 44 years later

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

Barron decided 1833, constitution ratified 1789. 1833-1789=44 years


Troll your arse with your thumb as I am done with your haterade

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

I think it is implicit that the fifth amendment takings provisions incorporated the intent for the same to apply to the state because it indicates "public use" generically (as opposed to federal use"). I also do not believe that one could argue with any degree of logic that "private property" concepts would ever be construed to be "only subject to the government just staying screw you and taking it without paying you a cent." Obviously though, property in that sense is confined to real estate.

Yet the Marshall Court ruled: The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.

It wasn't just about real estate

You need to make up your mind what you are asking then if you want to have a discussion. Your OP asks about what the framer's intended, not what the Supreme Court ruled 44 years later.

The Marshall Court did not rule 44 years later

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

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

Barron decided 1833, constitution ratified 1789. 1833-1789=44 years


Troll your arse with your thumb as I am done with your haterade

December 15, 1791 = not 44 years

On December 15, 1791, Articles Three–Twelve, having been ratified by the required number of states, became Amendments One–Ten of the Constitution. Barron decided 1833. = not 44 years