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

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 28, 2014.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    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
     
  2. Nutz
    Offline

    Nutz BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,814
    Thanks Received:
    1,790
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,817
    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.
     
  3. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    2,662
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,426
    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.
     
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    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
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    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
     
  6. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    2,662
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,426

    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.
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    The Founders asked the Supreme Court to rule. They agreed to abide by the ruling
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    The Marshall Court did not rule 44 years later

    referencing:
    Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()
    Syllabus
    Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute
     
  9. Dekster
    Offline

    Dekster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    2,662
    Thanks Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,426

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


    Troll your arse with your thumb as I am done with your haterade
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    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
     

Share This Page