As is plainly evident in both the early case law such as McCulloch and the case law today such as US Term Limits, it was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government be supreme, that acts of Congress are binding on the states and immune from state 'nullification,' t
As it pertains to powers of the Federal Government and Powers of the States, yes. When in conflict on issues that the Federal government possessed explicit powers to regulate, Federal Power was supreme. Otherwise, the States were supreme. As the 10th amendment makes clear.
But it was NOT the intent of the founders that the restrictions to Federal power apply to the States. Unless explicitly stated, none of the restrictions that limited federal power applied to the States. Like say.....the Bill of Rights. It had absolutely no application to the States until nearly the turn of the 20th century. It was strictly a limit on federal power. The States could violate it to their hearts content. And often did.
And with the USSC full blessing for well over a century.
that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, that the Federal courts and their decisions were to be the supreme law of the land, where the states have neither the right nor authority to deny a citizen his civil liberties, or otherwise violate his Constitutional rights.
Not even close. There is zero mention in the constitution of restrictions to federal power restricting the states. In fact, the constitution makes a strict delineation between what applies to the States and what does not. Unless expressly stated, these restrictions to federal power did not nor were ever intended to apply to the States. There is exactly zero mention in any portion of the constitutional convention of the Bill of Rights restricting States actions save one: that it was believed that the duty of the Federal Government to protect the States and the duty of the States to protect the rights of the people.
James Madison actually had a longer Bill of Rights than was actually passed, with a pair of amendments with explicitly enumerated application to the several States that no other amendments possessed. Something he never would have needed if all of the amendments were intended to apply to the States anyway.
The courts recognized this. In Barron V. Baltimore, the SCOTUS utterly obliterates your entire argument.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government.
Barron V. Baltimore (1833)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html
That's an explicit contradiction of your claims by the SCOTUS, btw. And they kick the shit out of that dead horse:
These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
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 (1833)
It was so well understood at this point in our nation's history that Justice Marshall actually got a little flippant about it:
"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. "
Barron V. Baltimore (1833)
That's about as close as a justice of the 1830s could get to saying 'Muthafucka, please!". The answer was obvious: the bill of rights didn't apply to the States nor was ever intended to.
And of course, it was common knowledge at the time of the passage of the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights nor any of the constitutional guarantees applied to or restricted the States in anyway. Protecting these guarantees from violation by the States was the reason section 1 of the 14th amendment was created.
and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.
Senator Jacob Howard
Introduction of the 14th Amendment on the Senate Floor
May, 1866
The issue wasn't even debated, the case law on this was so rock solid and the principles so well understood by all. Making your assertion that the Federal government always had and was always intended to have the power to apply the Bill of Rights to the States an assertion that neither history, the constitutional conventions, James Madison nor the USSC in the pre 14th amendment era is capable of backing.
