For Constitutionalists Only!

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

And Opinion is like having a sphincter. Everyone has one.

Yes, I know. A moot point seeing how we are posting on a message board predicated on opinion.

 

[stonewall]

But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

Why would you like to see the incorporation of the first 10 amendments?

I view incorporation as a theory that needs reversed.

Certainly it was not the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. That whole business started 70-80 years after the amendment was adopted. Judicial Activism.

 

[goldcatt]

But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

Why would you like to see the incorporation of the first 10 amendments?

I view incorporation as a theory that needs reversed.

Certainly it was not the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. That whole business started 70-80 years after the amendment was adopted. Judicial Activism.

Not judicial activism, try passage of the 14th in part to rectify the error making Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 insufficient to keep the States from stampeding on Federally guaranteed rights at whim. What point is having a Bill of Rights at all if the States can just take those freedoms away whenever it sees fit? You love your state government so much you're willing to give up your freedom of speech, of religion, of the right to bear arms to it??

 

[stonewall]

But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

Why would you like to see the incorporation of the first 10 amendments?

I view incorporation as a theory that needs reversed.

Certainly it was not the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. That whole business started 70-80 years after the amendment was adopted. Judicial Activism.

Not judicial activism, try passage of the 14th in part to rectify the error making Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 insufficient to keep the States from stampeding on Federally guaranteed rights at whim. What point is having a Bill of Rights at all if the States can just take those freedoms away whenever it sees fit? You love your state government so much you're willing to give up your freedom of speech, of religion, of the right to bear arms to it??

The 14th Amendment, when adopted, was not a vehicle for incorporation.

Did any State not have freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? The Right to bear arms... and the right to bear arms has not been incorporated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And did not the states stomp on those minorities they despised? The 14th reigns, the states bow. Nuff said.

 

[goldcatt]

Why would you like to see the incorporation of the first 10 amendments?

I view incorporation as a theory that needs reversed.

Certainly it was not the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights. That whole business started 70-80 years after the amendment was adopted. Judicial Activism.

Not judicial activism, try passage of the 14th in part to rectify the error making Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 insufficient to keep the States from stampeding on Federally guaranteed rights at whim. What point is having a Bill of Rights at all if the States can just take those freedoms away whenever it sees fit? You love your state government so much you're willing to give up your freedom of speech, of religion, of the right to bear arms to it??

The 14th Amendment, when adopted, was not a vehicle for incorporation.

Did any State not have freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? The Right to bear arms... and the right to bear arms has not been incorporated.

The right to bear arms was only just defined. The next possible case will incorporate. Trust me.

Actually, several States had narrowed rights of speech, press, assembly and especially in States such as Maryland and Virginia with established State religions, narrowed freedom of worship. Rights of the accused varied from State to State as well. Go back and read the historical State constitutions sometime (some of the provisions are actually still on the books, just unenforceable). They can be a real hoot.

But if you feel the 14th does not bind the States by the rights named in the Federal Constitution, what exactly do you think are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?

 

[goldcatt]

How come I can never get anybody to answer that question?

 

[stonewall]

Not judicial activism, try passage of the 14th in part to rectify the error making Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 insufficient to keep the States from stampeding on Federally guaranteed rights at whim. What point is having a Bill of Rights at all if the States can just take those freedoms away whenever it sees fit? You love your state government so much you're willing to give up your freedom of speech, of religion, of the right to bear arms to it??

The 14th Amendment, when adopted, was not a vehicle for incorporation.

Did any State not have freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? The Right to bear arms... and the right to bear arms has not been incorporated.

The right to bear arms was only just defined. The next possible case will incorporate. Trust me.

Actually, several States had narrowed rights of speech, press, assembly and especially in States such as Maryland and Virginia with established State religions, narrowed freedom of worship. Rights of the accused varied from State to State as well. Go back and read the historical State constitutions sometime (some of the provisions are actually still on the books, just unenforceable). They can be a real hoot.

But if you feel the 14th does not bind the States by the rights named in the Federal Constitution, what exactly do you think are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?

If it is as you believe, that the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the "Bill of Rights", then why did no State after adopting this amendment incorporate the "Bill of Rights"? Not one State did anything in this regard.

Even now not all are incorporated.

The reason incorporation is bad is because the National Government can define these "rights" in any manner they want and then that definition immediately imposed on the States. They can change meanings of "rights".

It gives the National Government a lot of power.

And, no the 2nd Amendment will not be "incorporated". At least not with the current Supreme Court. No "originalist" will do this.

 

[goldcatt]

The 14th Amendment, when adopted, was not a vehicle for incorporation.

Did any State not have freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion? The Right to bear arms... and the right to bear arms has not been incorporated.

The right to bear arms was only just defined. The next possible case will incorporate. Trust me.

Actually, several States had narrowed rights of speech, press, assembly and especially in States such as Maryland and Virginia with established State religions, narrowed freedom of worship. Rights of the accused varied from State to State as well. Go back and read the historical State constitutions sometime (some of the provisions are actually still on the books, just unenforceable). They can be a real hoot.

But if you feel the 14th does not bind the States by the rights named in the Federal Constitution, what exactly do you think are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?

If it is as you believe, that the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the "Bill of Rights", then why did no State after adopting this amendment incorporate the "Bill of Rights"? Not one State did anything in this regard.

Even now not all are incorporated.

The reason incorporation is bad is because the National Government can define these "rights" in any manner they want and then that definition immediately imposed on the States. They can change meanings of "rights".

It gives the National Government a lot of power.

And, no the 2nd Amendment will not be "incorporated". At least not with the current Supreme Court. No "originalist" will do this.

I disagree re: the Second. Have you read the ruling on the DC ban that (finally) defined the right to keep and bear arms? The dicta was fairly clear that it would have incorporated had there been a State law at issue. Of course, I'll freely admit I'm no originalist. Perhaps we read dicta differently as well.

Of course, other than the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 and the Privileges and immunities clause in Article 4, there is no evidence of original intent to have uniformity of rights throughout the States, or to have the Federal guarantees supersede State laws. But what then, are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

 

[stonewall]

The right to bear arms was only just defined. The next possible case will incorporate. Trust me.

Actually, several States had narrowed rights of speech, press, assembly and especially in States such as Maryland and Virginia with established State religions, narrowed freedom of worship. Rights of the accused varied from State to State as well. Go back and read the historical State constitutions sometime (some of the provisions are actually still on the books, just unenforceable). They can be a real hoot.

But if you feel the 14th does not bind the States by the rights named in the Federal Constitution, what exactly do you think are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"?

If it is as you believe, that the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the "Bill of Rights", then why did no State after adopting this amendment incorporate the "Bill of Rights"? Not one State did anything in this regard.

Even now not all are incorporated.

The reason incorporation is bad is because the National Government can define these "rights" in any manner they want and then that definition immediately imposed on the States. They can change meanings of "rights".

It gives the National Government a lot of power.

And, no the 2nd Amendment will not be "incorporated". At least not with the current Supreme Court. No "originalist" will do this.

I disagree re: the Second. Have you read the ruling on the DC ban that (finally) defined the right to keep and bear arms? The dicta was fairly clear that it would have incorporated had there been a State law at issue. Of course, I'll freely admit I'm no originalist. Perhaps we read dicta differently as well.

Of course, other than the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 and the Privileges and immunities clause in Article 4, there is no evidence of original intent to have uniformity of rights throughout the States, or to have the Federal guarantees supersede State laws. But what then, are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

The Court will never incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Even those on the Left probably would not do it because it would strike down virtually all gun laws on the books.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, must be understood in the context of the time it was written. The 14th Amendment was a Civil War Amendment. The framers wanted to ensure equality for Blacks and ensure that they were treated in an equal way throughout the Union. If they wanted to move to another State they would be citizens of that State. Also, the 14th Amendment was meant to create a National Citizenship and ensure that no State could ever leave the Union ever again because that State included not only citizens of a particular State but they were also U.S. Citizens.

 

[goldcatt]

If it is as you believe, that the 14th Amendment was meant to incorporate the "Bill of Rights", then why did no State after adopting this amendment incorporate the "Bill of Rights"? Not one State did anything in this regard.

Even now not all are incorporated.

The reason incorporation is bad is because the National Government can define these "rights" in any manner they want and then that definition immediately imposed on the States. They can change meanings of "rights".

It gives the National Government a lot of power.

And, no the 2nd Amendment will not be "incorporated". At least not with the current Supreme Court. No "originalist" will do this.

I disagree re: the Second. Have you read the ruling on the DC ban that (finally) defined the right to keep and bear arms? The dicta was fairly clear that it would have incorporated had there been a State law at issue. Of course, I'll freely admit I'm no originalist. Perhaps we read dicta differently as well.

Of course, other than the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 and the Privileges and immunities clause in Article 4, there is no evidence of original intent to have uniformity of rights throughout the States, or to have the Federal guarantees supersede State laws. But what then, are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

The Court will never incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Even those on the Left probably would not do it because it would strike down virtually all gun laws on the books.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, must be understood in the context of the time it was written. The 14th Amendment was a Civil War Amendment. The framers wanted to ensure equality for Blacks and ensure that they were treated in an equal way throughout the Union. If they wanted to move to another State they would be citizens of that State. Also, the 14th Amendment was meant to create a National Citizenship and ensure that no State could ever leave the Union ever again because that State included not only citizens of a particular State but they were also U.S. Citizens.

What you describe was already done by the Thirteenth, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 4. Why a new one, specifically for the P&I of the "citizens of the United States", not "of the various States" as in Article 4? Your answer goes no further than what was already there. What is the difference, if not the Federal guarantees?

And BTW, even today the Fedrel guarantees are only the minimum accepted standard. Any State is free to offer more freedoms and/or protections, they simply cannot offer less.

As for the Second, I fear you are confusing political ideology with Constitutional theory. While they can coincide, they are not the same thing.

 

[goldcatt]

Good conversation, by the way. Always good to disagree without getting ugly.

 

[stonewall]

I disagree re: the Second. Have you read the ruling on the DC ban that (finally) defined the right to keep and bear arms? The dicta was fairly clear that it would have incorporated had there been a State law at issue. Of course, I'll freely admit I'm no originalist. Perhaps we read dicta differently as well.

Of course, other than the Supremacy Clause in Article 6 and the Privileges and immunities clause in Article 4, there is no evidence of original intent to have uniformity of rights throughout the States, or to have the Federal guarantees supersede State laws. But what then, are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?

The Court will never incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Even those on the Left probably would not do it because it would strike down virtually all gun laws on the books.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, must be understood in the context of the time it was written. The 14th Amendment was a Civil War Amendment. The framers wanted to ensure equality for Blacks and ensure that they were treated in an equal way throughout the Union. If they wanted to move to another State they would be citizens of that State. Also, the 14th Amendment was meant to create a National Citizenship and ensure that no State could ever leave the Union ever again because that State included not only citizens of a particular State but they were also U.S. Citizens.

What you describe was already done by the Thirteenth, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 4. Why a new one, specifically for the P&I of the "citizens of the United States", not "of the various States" as in Article 4? Your answer goes no further than what was already there. What is the difference, if not the Federal guarantees?

And BTW, even today the Fedrel guarantees are only the minimum accepted standard. Any State is free to offer more freedoms and/or protections, they simply cannot offer less.

As for the Second, I fear you are confusing political ideology with Constitutional theory. While they can coincide, they are not the same thing.

I have no idea why they needed another clause, other than what I have already stated.

It's not like incorporation is being accomplished under that clause of the 14th Amendment anyway.

 

[stonewall]

Good conversation, by the way. Always good to disagree without getting ugly.

I agree.

 

[goldcatt]

The Court will never incorporate the 2nd Amendment. Even those on the Left probably would not do it because it would strike down virtually all gun laws on the books.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, must be understood in the context of the time it was written. The 14th Amendment was a Civil War Amendment. The framers wanted to ensure equality for Blacks and ensure that they were treated in an equal way throughout the Union. If they wanted to move to another State they would be citizens of that State. Also, the 14th Amendment was meant to create a National Citizenship and ensure that no State could ever leave the Union ever again because that State included not only citizens of a particular State but they were also U.S. Citizens.

What you describe was already done by the Thirteenth, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 4. Why a new one, specifically for the P&I of the "citizens of the United States", not "of the various States" as in Article 4? Your answer goes no further than what was already there. What is the difference, if not the Federal guarantees?

And BTW, even today the Fedrel guarantees are only the minimum accepted standard. Any State is free to offer more freedoms and/or protections, they simply cannot offer less.

As for the Second, I fear you are confusing political ideology with Constitutional theory. While they can coincide, they are not the same thing.

I have no idea why they needed another clause, other than what I have already stated.

It's not like incorporation is being accomplished under that clause of the 14th Amendment anyway.

Of course it is. That, combined with the other passages previously noted. Put them together and the intent to bind the States by the Federally protected rights is clear. Of course, I'm a pragmatist who favors that kind of four corners reading, so it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[stonewall]

What you describe was already done by the Thirteenth, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 4. Why a new one, specifically for the P&I of the "citizens of the United States", not "of the various States" as in Article 4? Your answer goes no further than what was already there. What is the difference, if not the Federal guarantees?

And BTW, even today the Fedrel guarantees are only the minimum accepted standard. Any State is free to offer more freedoms and/or protections, they simply cannot offer less.

As for the Second, I fear you are confusing political ideology with Constitutional theory. While they can coincide, they are not the same thing.

I have no idea why they needed another clause, other than what I have already stated.

It's not like incorporation is being accomplished under that clause of the 14th Amendment anyway.

Of course it is. That, combined with the other passages previously noted. Put them together and the intent to bind the States by the Federally protected rights is clear. Of course, I'm a pragmatist who favors that kind of four corners reading, so it makes perfect sense to me.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is what is used by the Supreme Court to incorporate.

 

[goldcatt]

I have no idea why they needed another clause, other than what I have already stated.

It's not like incorporation is being accomplished under that clause of the 14th Amendment anyway.

Of course it is. That, combined with the other passages previously noted. Put them together and the intent to bind the States by the Federally protected rights is clear. Of course, I'm a pragmatist who favors that kind of four corners reading, so it makes perfect sense to me.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is what is used by the Supreme Court to incorporate.

The later cases, yes. But look back to the original idea of incorporation in the Slaughterhouse cases and you'll find the concept comes from the P&I clause, not Due Process.
Due Process became the key after guaranteed rights became classified as rights of "life", "liberty", or "property" in nature, therefore more easily falling under the DP clause. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me, but they didn't.
Dred Scott took a more narrow view of the P&I clause, but we all know why and how that worked out.
This also explains why some of the Bill of Rights (such as the Seventh) were not incorporated, although under the original theory of incorporation they should have been.

 

[Citizen]

1. When the Constitution was signed, there was some fear that it could lead to a repressive central government- so they passed the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, basic rights to protect citizens against abuse by the federal government.

2. But in America, there are two government: the federal, and the government of the state in which we live. The Bill of Rights only limits what the federal government can do to us; there are no protections against human and civil rights violations by state governments. And state laws are the ones that affect our lives much more directly: police matters, public works, real estate, auto regulations, domestic relations, wills, and civil lawsuits, among other aspects of daily life.

3. After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to prohibit slavery. But in the South and in the North, state legislatures passed hundreds of laws discriminating against blacks, such as voting, holding office, using public facilities, testifying in court, etc.
So Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which included: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

4. How is an amendment ratified? Article 5: “it does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (either the legislatures thereof, or in amendment conventions).”
The requisite number of states (28) ratified it in 1868. Maybe.

5. But-
a. . When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule (designed to remove with "Military force'' the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10 Southern States), and they were ‘forced’ to ratify.

b. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

c. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

d. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, making the 10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one fourth of the total number of 36 states of the Union as of that date, thus leaving less than three fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law, and it could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement.

e. Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support after it was ratified.


So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

Was the Fourteenth Amendment legally and constitutionally ratified and enacted?

And, what are the ramifications if it is ruled unconstitutional?

The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and on July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:[44]

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:

Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the Amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.

There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the Amendment had been ratified by every state in the Union as of 1868:[45]

Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[stonewall]

Of course it is. That, combined with the other passages previously noted. Put them together and the intent to bind the States by the Federally protected rights is clear. Of course, I'm a pragmatist who favors that kind of four corners reading, so it makes perfect sense to me.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is what is used by the Supreme Court to incorporate.

The later cases, yes. But look back to the original idea of incorporation in the Slaughterhouse cases and you'll find the concept comes from the P&I clause, not Due Process.
Due Process became the key after guaranteed rights became classified as rights of "life", "liberty", or "property" in nature, therefore more easily falling under the DP clause. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me, but they didn't.
Dred Scott took a more narrow view of the P&I clause, but we all know why and how that worked out.
This also explains why some of the Bill of Rights (such as the Seventh) were not incorporated, although under the original theory of incorporation they should have been.

The original idea was a failure.

And, the later idea should have been a failure.



I can understand your view about incorporation being a good idea. I disagree with it.

Certainly the amendment was not meant to incorporate, or it would have achieved that immediately. It would not have taken the Court decades to figure it out and then inform the States.

When America adopted the 19th Amendment, we figured it out right away. We are not having debates about what it means. The States and citizens understood what the Amendment meant.

Of course they understood what the 14th Amendment meant too... and it did not mean incorporation. If it did mean that, we would not be having this conversation just like we are not having one about the 19th Amendment.

 

[goldcatt]

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is what is used by the Supreme Court to incorporate.

The later cases, yes. But look back to the original idea of incorporation in the Slaughterhouse cases and you'll find the concept comes from the P&I clause, not Due Process.
Due Process became the key after guaranteed rights became classified as rights of "life", "liberty", or "property" in nature, therefore more easily falling under the DP clause. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me, but they didn't.
Dred Scott took a more narrow view of the P&I clause, but we all know why and how that worked out.
This also explains why some of the Bill of Rights (such as the Seventh) were not incorporated, although under the original theory of incorporation they should have been.

The original idea was a failure.

And, the later idea should have been a failure.



I can understand your view about incorporation being a good idea. I disagree with it.

Certainly the amendment was not meant to incorporate, or it would have achieved that immediately. It would not have taken the Court decades to figure it out and then inform the States.

When America adopted the 19th Amendment, we figured it out right away. We are not having debates about what it means. The States and citizens understood what the Amendment meant.

Of course they understood what the 14th Amendment meant too... and it did not mean incorporation. If it did mean that, we would not be having this conversation just like we are not having one about the 19th Amendment.

Actually, the Slaughterhouse cases were only about 5 years after ratification. And that's the view I agree with. As written, the Bill of Rights plus the P&I clause of Article 4 is too open to interpretation - and the Supremacy clause has been largely overlooked in application to this area. Add in the new P&I clause of the 14th and there is little room for doubt as to whether the States have to guarantee the minimum level of rights guaranteed on the Federal level.

I like rights, I think we should all have a minimum standard of individual rights guaranteed nationwide as citizens of the nation. I liek the P&I clause fo the 14th for that reason, and agree with the original theory of incorporation for the same reason. And because I think on a four corners reading for the intent of the document as written and as amended, that's what makes sense.

I can see your POV, especially as it relates to the piecemeal incorporation accomplished under the later DP theory, but expecting a bunch of lawyers to write something in plain English is asking way too much.

I suppose we shall just have to agree to disagree.