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.
