did the USSC cause a problem with the bill or rights.

[Master PO]

I disagree strongly with this last paragraph.

First that "1833" Supreme Court case you repeatedly reference, really did not deal with rights at all, but rather more with the state having responsibility for its own actions. Despite your not having specifically referenced that case, I believe it to be Barron vs Baltimore. This case involved John Barron, who owned a wharf in Baltimore harbor, suing the city of Baltimore for having diverted water-flow in the construction of streets, resulting in the wharf area being filled with silt and sand and being too shallow to serve as dockage.

The entire intent of the case was to insulate the states, or in this case the city government, from damages caused directly by their own irresponsible action, which is something we would reject today for a wide variety of reasons, and without reference to the Bill of Rights.

However Chief Justice John Marshall's argument here is not just corrupt, but reaching the level of buffoonery. Marshall considered the Constitution generally, and asserted that passages of the Constitution that are not specifically stated to apply to the states, are not applicable thereto, which is true. As example, Marshall specifically referenced Article 1, Section 9 "prohibitions to congress" and specifically the prohibitions of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws, stating that these do not apply to states. Despite this fact, many states themselves specifically prohibit this sort of clearly tyrannous legislation, and if they did not, today's courts would strike down any law demonstrating these applications.

However Marshall took this appraisal of the Constitution generally, and then mistakenly applied it to the Bill of Rights, specifically. when this entire country is founded upon the recognition that those rights are innate to the individual, and unalienable, and not limited to their recognition in the Constitution.

Today, the idea that these Bills of attainder or ex post facto laws might be enacted by the states, would result in those state legislatures being raised to the ground Indeed most state constitutions have prohibitions of those two things as well, and no law would pass muster from those states even if these prohibitions did not exist.

Any government doing these things, be it state of federal, would be, or should be, justifiably be burned to the ground.

Marshall's enormous oversight, so enormous that it can only be deliberate corruption, is failing to recognize that the Constitution only defines the federal government, and the terms of involvement of the states, people and foreign governments with that federal government. However that Bill of Rights is not presented there as being only applicable to the federal government, but solely as emphasis to the boundaries specifically applied to that federal government derived from those rights, giving the Constitution its structure and definition.s.

Those "rights" may well be only referenced there in application to the federal government, but the topic in the Constitution is only the federal government, and those rights were quite obviously not created by that document.

But in an even broader perspective, those rights are undeniably recognized to be "unalienable", unable to be taken, denied, or even willfully given away, ... and this includes for the states themselves.

If our rights can be denied and alienate by those states, then there is no point in recognizing any rights whatsoever! If the states might deny the right to due process, free speech, or even the right to keep and bear arms, then it really is irrelevant that the federal government is prohibited from those denying those rights.

Quite obviously that Bill of Rights does not exist merely because of the Constitution and the Federal government, but because of those rights being innate to the individual regardless of the Constitution and what it asserts about the terms of existence of that federal government.

You're fond of referencing the founders, and the Federalist papers. Kindly point me to any one of the founders writings, anywhere in the federalist, or outside of them, where those founders indicate in ANY APPLICATION whatsoever, that it is for some obscure reason infinitely preferable that the states themselves deny rights, rather than the federal government?

The fact is, it does not exist.

There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions that are not just wrong, but grossly wrong, even intellectually deficient, and corrupt, and this is one of them.




How is it possible for you to recognize that the Federal government does not grant the rights in the Bill of Rights, which I believe you do recognize, and then turn around with this sort of comment involving the states themselves actually having the authority to fabricate rights, or even deny them?

Do the States have some sort of special box they might pull magical rights, or right-denials from, that makes these fabrications somehow deified by Nature's God? Perhaps this is the divinely authoritative "box" to make up the meaning of marriage itself, turning the very meaning of rights on its ear as well?

Did this country's founders revolt against Britain because they believed the colonies each had the authority to make up their own rights, rights that George was failing to recognize?

Does the Declaration of Independence declare the right that of the colony-states to make up whatever rights they want, and proclaim this authority throughout the land, and to the world itself? No, that's not at all what the DOI indicates of rights, nor the federalist papers.






How is it possible for those states to have written laws that might still be promoting "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness", yet be in disregard of the those rights held universally be each individual?

Perhaps you believe those states are deliberately set aside and recognized to have ongoing sovereignty, so that they might promote the life, liberty and happiness of but a few, benefited by the denial of the rights of many, but if so, where the hell is this enormous caveat indicated anywhere in the DOI, or even the Federalist?

Oh, you did indeed clear up your meaning, but that did not dispel the expanding clouds of tyranny that are settling in from that meaning.

you know already i am not good at writing books..

the founders at the constitutional convention were not worried about the states powers in the sense, that they would violate the rights of the people.

they were creating a federal government, one of limited powers, and some of the powers that the states once held were being turned over the that new federal government.

the bill of rights was to limit the federal government and abuse of its powers, the constitution did not limit the states that all [it speaks to states in general terms], ... until the 13th amendment to the constitution, and it was never written to limit the people or business at all.

bill of rights "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

translation:.....the states in adopting the constitution in order to prevent misconstruction, abuse of its federal powers, that declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, as to built public confidence in the federal government.

1st amendment...." congress shall make no law"

Madison...."In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments[bill of rights], which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Madison.."The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.

Madison.."That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by he Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Madison..--Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

the idea of the founders, were to have separate and Independent states, only to be bound together by the limited powers of the federal government, and states would be run according to their own constitution,......question?, if the federal bill of rights applied to states in the beginning, why do state constitutions have bills of rights?...we already see that the population does not look at their own state bill of rights, but always looks at the federal one.

federalist 39 Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

a good site..

American Heritage, Free Republic Government, Freedom Founding Documents

below is a link to all 50 state constitutions, if you look you will see that all of them, mimic the federal one on rights, they are just written differently.

State Constitutions, Preambles, Liberty, Freedom, Documents

 

[Trip]

you know already i am not good at writing books..

the founders at the constitutional convention were not worried about the states powers in the sense, that they would violate the rights of the people.

they were creating a federal government, one of limited powers, and some of the powers that the states once held were being turned over the that new federal government.

the bill of rights was to limit the federal government and abuse of its powers, the constitution did not limit the states that all [it speaks to states in general terms], ... until the 13th amendment to the constitution, and it was never written to limit the people or business at all.

Sure, the Bill of Rights was provided in the Constitution to limit the federal government, but that is not the say that the purpose of those rights is limited only to the federal government. In fact the Declaration of Independence profoundly disagrees with this interpretation.

bill of rights "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

translation:.....the states in adopting the constitution in order to prevent misconstruction, abuse of its federal powers, that declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, as to built public confidence in the federal government.

1st amendment...." congress shall make no law"

<snip>

Yes, yes, yes, all that is true, but all of that is applicable only to the Constituiton itself, and not rights overall.

And not a one of those quotations you've dumped addresses my specific questions.

the idea of the founders, were to have separate and Independent states, only to be bound together by the limited powers of the federal government, and states would be run according to their own constitution,......question?, of the federal bill of rights applied to states in the beginning, why do state constitutions have bills of rights?...we already see that the population does not look at their own state bill of rights, but always looks at the federal one.

federalist 39 Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

a good site..

Yet nowhere in the sovereignty of those States, is there any intent whatsoever that they might institute their own fiefdoms capable of denying individual rights as they might choose.

Nowhere do any of those Federalist writings indicate, or encourage, or even imagine, that the States might deny individual rights, to suit the majorities therein, or the governing minority.

Nowhere does the philosophy of this country, nor the 10th Amendment itself, provide states like Massachusetts the authority to deny individual sovereignty over themselves, and dictate the terms of their health care.

Again, I reiterate my challenge for you to point to even the slightest indication by those founders that it was infinitely preferable that those rights be denied by the individual state governments, rather than the federal government.

It does not exist, and such a belief is a gross corruption of rights, freedom, the Constitution, and this country.

 

[Master PO]

Sure, the Bill of Rights was provided in the Constitution to limit the federal government, but that is not the say that the purpose of those rights is limited only to the federal government. In fact the Declaration of Independence profoundly disagrees with this interpretation.



Yes, yes, yes, all that is true, but all of that is applicable only to the Constituiton itself, and not rights overall.

And not a one of those quotations you've dumped addresses my specific questions.




Yet nowhere in the sovereignty of those States, is there any intent whatsoever that they might institute their own fiefdoms capable of denying individual rights as they might choose.

Nowhere do any of those Federalist writings indicate, or encourage, or even imagine, that the States might deny individual rights, to suit the majorities therein, or the governing minority.

Nowhere does the philosophy of this country, nor the 10th Amendment itself, provide states like Massachusetts the authority to deny individual sovereignty over themselves, and dictate the terms of their health care.

Again, I reiterate my challenge for you to point to even the slightest indication by those founders that it was infinitely preferable that those rights be denied by the individual state governments, rather than the federal government.

It does not exist, and such a belief is a gross corruption of rights, freedom, the Constitution, and this country.

well we are going to disagree then, because i maintain my stance, that the states were never to have a federal document limiting them....federal documents limits the federal government. to 18 powers, and the rest are the states.

Madison...."In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments[bill of rights], which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

 

[Trip]

well we are going to disagree then, because i maintain my stance, that the states were never to have a federal document limiting them....federal documents limits the federal government. to 18 powers, and the rest are the states.

Madison...."In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments[bill of rights], which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Well, then to your difference just made our revolution and the lives lost in defense of individual freedom for nothing whatsoever.

Freedom is only the right to have our rights stolen locally, rather than by some unknown bureaucracy miles away.

And Liberty is only what remains once the populist masses, or local elites have picked the choice meat from our bones.

"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
​

THIS is yet another reason why I reject Libertarian half-informed beliefs.

 

[Master PO]

Well, then to your difference just made our revolution and the lives lost in defense of individual freedom for nothing whatsoever.

Freedom is only the right to have our rights stolen locally, rather than by some unknown bureaucracy miles away.

And Liberty is only what remains once the populist masses, or local elites have picked the choice meat from our bones.

"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
​

THIS is yet another reason why I reject Libertarian half-informed beliefs.

no that's not right, every state constitution mimics the federal one they are just written different.


Delawares bill of rights

ARTICLE I.

BILL OF RIGHTS

§1. Freedom of religion.

Section 1. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magistrate that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship, nor a preference given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship.

§2. Religious test for office not required.

Section 2. No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.

§3. Free and equal elections.

Section 3. All elections shall be free and equal.

§4. Trial by jury; composition of grand juries; concurrence in indictment.

Section 4. Trial by jury shall be as heretofore.

§5. Freedom of press; evidence in libel prosecutions; jury questions.

Section 5. The press shall be free to every citizen who undertakes to examine the official conduct of men acting in a public capacity; and any citizen may print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In prosecutions for publications, investigating the proceedings of officers, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libels the jury may determine the facts and the law, as in other cases.

§6. Searches and seizures.

Section 6. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as particularly as may be; nor then, unless there be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

§7. Procedural rights in criminal prosecutions; jury trial; self-incrimination; deprivation of life, liberty or property.

Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to be plainly and fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself, his friends or council, for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor shall he be deprived of life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

§8. Prosecution by indictment or information; double jeopardy; just compensation for property.

Section 8. No person shall for any indictable offense be proceeded against criminally by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; and no person shall be for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any man's property be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his representatives, and without compensation being made.

§9. Courts shall be open; remedy for injury; venue; suits against State.

Section 9. All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his reputation, person, movable or immovable possessions, shall have remedy by the due course of law, and justice administered according to the very right of the cause and the law of the land, without sale, denial, or unreasonable delay or expense. Suits may be brought against the State, according to such regulations as shall be made by law.

§10. Suspension of laws by General Assembly.

Section 10. No power of suspending laws shall be exercised but by authority of the General Assembly.

§11. Excessive bail or fines; cruel punishments; health of prisoners.

Section 11. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted; and in the construction of jails a proper regard shall be had to the health of prisoners.

§12. Right to bail; access to accused.

Section 12. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is positive or the presumption great; and when persons are confined on accusation for such offenses their friends and counsel may at proper seasons have access to them.

§13. Suspension of habeas corpus.

Section 13. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

§14. Commission of oyer and terminer, or jail delivery.

Section 14. No commission of oyer and terminer, or jail delivery, shall be issued.

§15. Corruption of blood; forfeiture; descent of suicide's estate.

Section 15. No attainder shall work corruption of blood, nor except during the life of the offender forfeiture of estate. The estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death, and if any person be killed by accident no forfeiture shall thereby be incurred.

§16. Right of assembly; petition for redress of grievances.

Section 16. Although disobedience to laws by a part of the people, upon suggestions of impolicy or injustice in them, tends by immediate effect and the influence of example not only to endanger the public welfare and safety, but also in governments of a republican form contravenes the social principles of such governments, founded on common consent for common good; yet the citizens have a right in an orderly manner to meet together, and to apply to persons entrusted with the powers of government, for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, remonstrance or address.

§17. Standing army; necessity for legislative consent; subordination of military.

Section 17. No standing army shall be kept without the consent of the General Assembly, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

§18. Prohibition against quartering soldiers in home.

Section 18. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war but by a civil magistrate, in manner to be prescribed by law.

§19. Hereditary distinctions; holding office during good behavior; offices and titles from foreign states.

Section 19. No hereditary distinction shall be granted, nor any office created or exercised, the appointment to which shall be for a longer term than during good behavior; and no person holding any office under this State shall accept of any office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign State.

§20. Right to keep and bear arms.

Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)

 

[Master PO]

Well, then to your difference just made our revolution and the lives lost in defense of individual freedom for nothing whatsoever.

Freedom is only the right to have our rights stolen locally, rather than by some unknown bureaucracy miles away.

And Liberty is only what remains once the populist masses, or local elites have picked the choice meat from our bones.

"Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776
​

THIS is yet another reason why I reject Libertarian half-informed beliefs.

i would ask you this, i have provided Madison words, can you provide words from any founder which states the bill of rights applies to the state themselves.

 

[Trip]

no that's not right, every state constitution mimics the federal one they are just written different.
<snip>

If this were true, and that was the intent of this nation, then we would not be having this conversation, and you would not be claiming that Bill of Rights only apply to the federal government, when the rights that Bill recognizes are inherent to each individual against every form of government.

If this were true, as it should be, then the RomneyCare would be as equally unconstitutional in Massachusetts, as is ObamaCare b the Federal government, has no government has the authority to alienate the individual rights to ones very self, and usurp ownership of each individual citizen's body to dictate its care and maintenance.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

Conspicuously, those Founders do not indicate that only the Federal form of government is obligated to secure those rights, and not the State form.

 

[Master PO]

If this were true, and that was the intent of this nation, then we would not be having this conversation, and you would not be claiming that Bill of Rights only apply to the federal government, when the rights that Bill recognizes are inherent to each individual against every form of government.

If this were true, as it should be, then the RomneyCare would be as equally unconstitutional in Massachusetts, as is ObamaCare b the Federal government, has no government has the authority to alienate the individual rights to ones very self, and usurp ownership of each individual citizen's body to dictate its care and maintenance.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

Conspicuously, those Founders do not indicate that only the Federal form of government is obligated to secure those rights, and not the State form.

well i will put it like this..i have read a lot of the founders, and i have not ran across the states being subject to the constitution or the bill of rights, just like i have not come across the founders saying we are any sort of a democracy, which many claim and i have looked hard for these on purpose.

their are quotes out there from the founders, but some are fake, and i have checked any of them out i have come across.

 

[Trip]

i would ask you this, i have provided Madison words, can you provide words from any founder which states the bill of rights applies to the state themselves.

Therein lies the ignorance to which you cling.

The body known as the "Bill of Rights" is only a listing of rights in the Constitution, and that Constitution is only intended to address the federal government. However this fact does not remove the obligation of the states themselves to observe those rights.

Nowhere does the DOI, nor any of the founders writings, indicate that rights are only applicable to the federal government to observe, and such a claim is folly of the highest order.

It is a gross flaw of logic to contort the statements regarding the "Bill of Rights" being only applicable to the federal government, and extending this to States themselves having no obligation to recognize rights.

It has repeatedly been recognized that those rights exist beyond the Constitution itself. When you recognized this fact on your own, and I believe you have done so, did the implication of this so utterly escape you?

You, Sir, have single-handedly made every American's sacrifice of their life for this country, an utterly foolish offering, unless of course you care to explain the profound nobility of having those individual rights pilfered by the states, rather than the federal government, and can point to even one expression by the Founders supporting this disturbing belief.

I have to tell you, that this response is so profoundly disturbing that it is giving me serious impulse to entirely walk away from this country, and to say screw it. With this sort of unfathomable ignorance being proclaiming by the citizens, then this country is already lost from its own ignorance, deserves whatever fate befalls it. There is nothing more to defend.

 

[Trip]

well i will put it like this..i have read a lot of the founders, and i have not ran across the states being subject to the constitution or the bill of rights, just like i have not come across the founders saying we are any sort of a democracy, which many claim and i have looked hard for these on purpose.

their are quotes out there from the founders, but some are fake, and i have checked any of them out i have come across.

Bravo! You just passed elementary Constitution 101!

The Constitution is applicable to the federal government.

However this has nothing to do with the fact that the rights observed by the that Constitution are not applicable to the states!

Those quotes are in regard to the Constitution, and the federal government, not rights themselves. Perhaps you should reference the one I just provided from the DOI, which most assuredly is not fake.

 

[Master PO]

therein lies the ignorance to which you cling.

The body known as the "bill of rights" is only a listing of rights in the constitution, and that constitution is only intended to address the federal government. However this fact does not remove the obligation of the states themselves to observe those rights.

nowhere does the doi, nor any of the founders writings, indicate that rights are only applicable to the federal government to observe, and such a claim is folly of the highest order.

it is a gross flaw of logic to contort the statements regarding the "bill of rights" being only applicable to the federal government, and extending this to states themselves having no obligation to recognize rights.

It has repeatedly been recognized that those rights exist beyond the constitution itself. When you recognized this fact on your own, and i believe you have done so, did the implication of this so utterly escape you?

You, sir, have single-handedly made every american's sacrifice of their life for this country, an utterly foolish offering, unless of course you care to explain the profound nobility of having those individual rights pilfered by the states, rather than the federal government, and can point to even one expression by the founders supporting this disturbing belief.

I have to tell you, that this response is so profoundly disturbing that it is giving me serious impulse to entirely walk away from this country, and to say screw it. With this sort of unfathomable ignorance being proclaiming by the citizens, then this country is already lost from its own ignorance, deserves whatever fate befalls it. There is nothing more to defend.

well i am sorry you disagree, but i stand where i stand.

The founders never talk about the federal bill of rights for the states.

George madison and other anti-federalist insisted on a bill of rights, because they feared the constitution gave the federal government to much power, the document does not delegate any specific powers to the states...it makes general statements to the states.

 

[Trip]

well i am sorry you disagree, but i stand where i stand.

The founders never talk about the federal bill of rights for the states.

George madison and other anti-federalist insisted on a bill of rights, because they feared the constitution gave the federal government to much power, the document does not delegate any specific powers to the states...it makes general statements to the states.

The "Bill of Rights" is in the Constitution. It is a listing of rights in that constituton specifically applicable to the federal government.

The Constituton applies to the Federal government.

That does not mean that rights do not apply to the states.

When Hamilton said there was no need for rights in the Constitution, and that it might even be dangerous, nowhere does that discussion of rights involve them being only applicable to the federal government.


The founders have talked about rights being applicable to the individual and being "UNALIENABLE". That never involves those rights being only unalienable to the federal government, but to the ALL government.

What point are rights, if the states can deny them at their whim? <rhetorical, something you should have asked yourself decades ago>

 

[Captain Adverse]

before the civil war in 1833 the USSC ruled that the states did not have to adhere to the federal bill of rights, because it was written to limit the federal government only.

however after the clvi war the USSC ruled the states now have to adhere to the federal bill of rights.

as i see it this creates an interesting problem.

first the federal bill of rights, stately clearly in its preamble that all of the clauses in it, are declaratory and restrictive to government powers.

since the USSC has ruled states now adhere to the federal bill, it has turned there state constitutions bill of rights into a second banana status, and no ones looks at them anymore, and everyone turns to the federal bill for any rights infringements by governments.

before the civil war, states were free to make laws, according to its own bill of rights, which varied from state to state, meaning, they according to there constitution could make gun laws, religion laws, other laws which cannot be made according to our federal bill...

True. but before the Civil War the Supreme Court also ruled that Blacks, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857))

It also held that the 1793 Fugitive Slave law was Constitutional and the Federal government had to enforce it. (See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. 539 (1842))

The Constitution also allows for Amendment, and the reduced Congress was able to enact the 14th Amendment, which clearly applied to all States and territories. Subsequent SCOTUS rulings created to principle of "incorporation" using that Amendment as the basis.

The problem I have is with the presumption that these rights would not apply to the States without those rulings. That somehow because Supreme Court rulings clarify that they do, people think that this has somehow violated individual and/or States rights and sovereignty. But the people who proposed the Bill of Rights were activists in the various 13 States that opposed the original Constitution and wanted these rights clearly included to make sure the Federal government could not take them away from the people.

Therefore, they were already assumed to be rights held by the people, even regardless of State constitutional amendments which might deny or abridge them. Why would you take offense when the Bill of Rights is now clearly applicable to everyone? That NO ONE can deny these basic rights at the state or local level either? I'm confused by this.

 

[Trip]

True. but before the Civil War the Supreme Court also ruled that Blacks, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857))

It also held that the 1793 Fugitive Slave law was Constitutional and the Federal government had to enforce it. (See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. 539 (1842))

The Constitution also allows for Amendment, and the reduced Congress was able to enact the 14th Amendment, which clearly applied to all States and territories. Subsequent SCOTUS rulings created to principle of "incorporation" using that Amendment as the basis.

Well, the federal government does not actually have any legitimate authority by the Constitution to regulate anything in the states.

And blacks at the time of Dred Scott were not recognized to be citizens, and could not sue in the federal court.

And the so-called "Fugitive Slave Clause" of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, does not actually use the word "slave" anywhere, but involves anyone who was in a condition of servitude, but it voluntary or involuntary.

And while the 14th Amendment Section 1 provides a great many "shalls" in dictating what the states must recognize as far as human rights, the only legitimate authority the federal government has is detailed in Section 2, and involves the proportional reduction of the representation of that state where rights are denied, and no other authority to police rights in any of the States, much less compel private individuals and private organizations observe federal government unconstitutional dictates of rights, which is in gross conflict with rights to begin with.

The problem I have is with the presumption that these rights would not apply to the States without those rulings. That somehow because Supreme Court rulings clarify that they do, people think that this has somehow violated individual and/or States rights and sovereignty. But the people who proposed the Bill of Rights were activists in the various 13 States that opposed the original Constitution and wanted these rights clearly included to make sure the Federal government could not take them away from the people.

It is a misnomer to indicate that States have "rights", when they actually have powers, and nowhere among those legitimate powers is any authority to deny individual rights. Even the 10th Amendment concludes with "..or to the people", recognizing that there is no authority to deny individual rights by the states.

Therefore, they were already assumed to be rights held by the people, even regardless of State constitutional amendments which might deny or abridge them. Why would you take offense when the Bill of Rights is now clearly applicable to everyone? That NO ONE can deny these basic rights at the state or local level either? I'm confused by this.

The "Bill of Rights" is, technically, only applicable to the federal government. That's what that listing (bill) was written for - application to the federal government.

However the rights described therein, and nowhere created by that Bill of Rights, do indeed apply to the states, and always have. Only by illegitimate Court corruption have those rights been allowed to be transgressed by the states.

 

[Master PO]

the "bill of rights" is in the constitution. It is a listing of rights in that constituton specifically applicable to the federal government.>

true

the constituton applies to the federal government. >

true

that does not mean that rights do not apply to the states.>

true, but the rights that are listed the bill are not for the states.

Each state has its own bill or rights, and usully they list even more rights then the federal bill of rights.

when hamilton said there was no need for rights in the constitution, and that it might even be dangerous, nowhere does that discussion of rights involve them being only applicable to the federal government. >

madison and hamilton aruged that the bill of rights was dangerous because it would limit rights, becuase there would be a list.

But they also arued that a bill was not nessasary at all, becuase the federal government had no powers, which could violate the rights of the people, becuase their were only 18 and they are and american people did not intersect anywhere, expect for 3 classes of people....

the founders have talked about rights being applicable to the individual and being "unalienable". That never involves those rights being only unalienable to the federal government, but to the all government.>

the founders again were only creating a document for the federal goverment and its new powers, again they aruged that the new constution could not possibly violate rights of the people....becuase of only 18 duites, it is the anti-federalist who insisted on it.

Yes rights are unalieable to even state governments, and those rights are listed in there state constutions.

I gave you a link to all 50 state constitutions...with god in them and all the rights.....the same as the federal bill.

We discussed that the DOI is the foundation of all constututions in america.

what point are rights, if the states can deny them at their whim? <rhetorical, something you should have asked yourself decades ago>

they cannot deny them, states have rights just as the bill of rights and usually more listed, and those rights cannot be changed repealed, altered or abolished by the people even of a state, becuase that is what makes us republican government and not democtaic government.

Democratic government the people have the power over rights, in republican goverments, rights are unalieble and not subject to the whims of the people.

The people in republican governments, can vote on many things term limits, politcal pay, government projects, but they cannot vote on rights.

This is the problem becuase people do not understand republican government vs democtic government.

p.s. forgive my typing I am working on a small laptop.

 

[Master PO]

True. but before the Civil War the Supreme Court also ruled that Blacks, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857))

It also held that the 1793 Fugitive Slave law was Constitutional and the Federal government had to enforce it. (See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. 539 (1842))

The Constitution also allows for Amendment, and the reduced Congress was able to enact the 14th Amendment, which clearly applied to all States and territories. Subsequent SCOTUS rulings created to principle of "incorporation" using that Amendment as the basis.

The problem I have is with the presumption that these rights would not apply to the States without those rulings. That somehow because Supreme Court rulings clarify that they do, people think that this has somehow violated individual and/or States rights and sovereignty. But the people who proposed the Bill of Rights were activists in the various 13 States that opposed the original Constitution and wanted these rights clearly included to make sure the Federal government could not take them away from the people.

Therefore, they were already assumed to be rights held by the people, even regardless of State constitutional amendments which might deny or abridge them. Why would you take offense when the Bill of Rights is now clearly applicable to everyone? That NO ONE can deny these basic rights at the state or local level either? I'm confused by this.

I want to answer your quote and I will when I get back on my normal imac, I hate typing on my small pc.

 

[Trip]

true

true

true, but the rights that are listed the bill are not for the states.

The rights listed in the bill are for the people. They are applied in the Constituition to the Federal government, and not made up for the federal government for the Constitution, but exist whether or not they were referenced in the Constitution, and originally were not intended to be referenced.

Those rights are recognized by the Declaration of Independence to be innate to the individual, and unalienable.

Each state has its own bill or rights, and usully they list even more rights then the federal bill of rights.

That's pretty much irrelevant, since neither the states nor the federal government have the authority to fabricate rights, and only to recognize them. This fact is also recognized by the 9th Amendment, which references more rights beyond those that are listed.

madison and hamilton aruged that the bill of rights was dangerous because it would limit rights, becuase there would be a list.

But they also arued that a bill was not nessasary at all, becuase the federal government had no powers, which could violate the rights of the people, becuase their were only 18 and they are and american people did not intersect anywhere, expect for 3 classes of people....


That's not entirely accurate exactly the problem was as phrased. They argued that the presentation of such a listing of rights would serve as excuse, or "pretext", for those rights to be violated, or altered.

Even you have followed a variant of that pretext, by supposing that rights are only applicable to the federal government and not to the states, which is fundamentally an irrational argument on its own, since rights are innate to the individual and their ability to have them denied by anyone, any government, makes the recognition of those rights irrelevant.

However it is even more of a strange position for one professing himself to be a Libertarian to argue. Are we to understand that those individual liberties you believe so important really only apply to the federal government, and then become curiously irrelevant in regard to the states?

the founders again were only creating a document for the federal goverment and its new powers, again they aruged that the new constution could not possibly violate rights of the people....becuase of only 18 duites, it is the anti-federalist who insisted on it.

Yes, the founders were only creating a document (the Constitution) to 'constitute' the federal government. However those founders did not fabricate those rights, nor recognizing, merely for the federal government, but only applied them in the Constitution to constrain that federal government by absolute (unalienable) boundaries.

Yes rights are unalieable to even state governments, and those rights are listed in there state constutions.

I gave you a link to all 50 state constitutions...with god in them and all the rights.....the same as the federal bill.

We discussed that the DOI is the foundation of all constututions in america.

So if you admit that these rights are also recognized by the State governments, and unalienable to the individual, then how is it possible those rights are not applicable to the states? It is not as if the Constitution has one slate of rights, and the various States each have their own slate of rights.

they cannot deny them, states have rights just as the bill of rights and usually more listed, and those rights cannot be changed repealed, altered or abolished by the people even of a state, becuase that is what makes us republican government and not democtaic government.

Again, if you recognize that those rights apply to the states, then how is it you would deny that those rights recognized in the Constitution do not also apply to the states? There is an incongruity here. It is not has if each state has the authority to make up their own rights, and apply them, whereas the federal government has no authority to fabricate rights. In additional to being irrational, that conflicts with the clear indications of rights in the DOI, as well as in other discussions of natural law and rights going back to ancient Rome.

Democratic government the people have the power over rights, in republican governments, rights are unalieble and not subject to the whims of the people.

No, really Democratic governments do not. They just corrupt what rights are by majority demand, turning rights into something else no longer innate to the individiual, and no longer unalienable, by their greed and subversion to populist demand. . If those "rights" can be given, then they can be taken; if they can be taken, then they are no real rights at all.

There are no real rights in a democratic government; there is just immediate reward by populist demand. Madison even covers this in Federalist #10 and the threat this is to individual liberty, the exercise of real rights.

The people in republican governments, can vote on many things term limits, politcal pay, government projects, but they cannot vote on rights.

This is the problem becuase people do not understand republican government vs democtic government.

p.s. forgive my typing I am working on a small laptop.

That's an over simplistic understanding of the differences between democracy and a republic, and one which sacrifices rights having any real meaning so as to falsely validate democracy.

You still have not explained how it is possible for those rights recognized in the Constitution, and not originating there, to not apply to the states, which is the point of this exchange. You're wandering far afield to avoiding addressing that consideration.

 

[Master PO]

The rights listed in the bill are for the people. They are applied in the Constituition to the Federal government, and not made up for the federal government for the Constitution, but exist whether or not they were referenced in the Constitution, and originally were not intended to be referenced.

Those rights are recognized by the Declaration of Independence to be innate to the individual, and unalienable.



That's pretty much irrelevant, since neither the states nor the federal government have the authority to fabricate rights, and only to recognize them. This fact is also recognized by the 9th Amendment, which references more rights beyond those that are listed.




But they also arued that a bill was not nessasary at all, becuase the federal government had no powers, which could violate the rights of the people, becuase their were only 18 and they are and american people did not intersect anywhere, expect for 3 classes of people....


That's not entirely accurate exactly the problem was as phrased. They argued that the presentation of such a listing of rights would serve as excuse, or "pretext", for those rights to be violated, or altered.

Even you have followed a variant of that pretext, by supposing that rights are only applicable to the federal government and not to the states, which is fundamentally an irrational argument on its own, since rights are innate to the individual and their ability to have them denied by anyone, any government, makes the recognition of those rights irrelevant.

However it is even more of a strange position for one professing himself to be a Libertarian to argue. Are we to understand that those individual liberties you believe so important really only apply to the federal government, and then become curiously irrelevant in regard to the states?




Yes, the founders were only creating a document (the Constitution) to 'constitute' the federal government. However those founders did not fabricate those rights, nor recognizing, merely for the federal government, but only applied them in the Constitution to constrain that federal government by absolute (unalienable) boundaries.



So if you admit that these rights are also recognized by the State governments, and unalienable to the individual, then how is it possible those rights are not applicable to the states? It is not as if the Constitution has one slate of rights, and the various States each have their own slate of rights.





Again, if you recognize that those rights apply to the states, then how is it you would deny that those rights recognized in the Constitution do not also apply to the states? There is an incongruity here. It is not has if each state has the authority to make up their own rights, and apply them, whereas the federal government has no authority to fabricate rights. In additional to being irrational, that conflicts with the clear indications of rights in the DOI, as well as in other discussions of natural law and rights going back to ancient Rome.



No, really Democratic governments do not. They just corrupt what rights are by majority demand, turning rights into something else no longer innate to the individiual, and no longer unalienable, by their greed and subversion to populist demand. . If those "rights" can be given, then they can be taken; if they can be taken, then they are no real rights at all.

There are no real rights in a democratic government; there is just immediate reward by populist demand. Madison even covers this in Federalist #10 and the threat this is to individual liberty, the exercise of real rights.




That's an over simplistic understanding of the differences between democracy and a republic, and one which sacrifices rights having any real meaning so as to falsely validate democracy.

You still have not explained how it is possible for those rights recognized in the Constitution, and not originating there, to not apply to the states, which is the point of this exchange. You're wandering far afield to avoiding addressing that consideration.

I am sorry, but I did not do a good job, at explaining because of the current pc I am using, but I will respond to you better, when in front of a better computer later today.

 

[Oftencold]

Yes, they did.

The best example for honest people is the Establishment Clause, which clearly binds Congress alone. Readings that bind the States are delusional at best.

(This is not to say that States would be wise to act otherwise, but obviously that Law was in no way written to bind them.)

If our legally enacted legislation may be granted imaginary language by a judicial oligarchy, no matter if it is benign or no, then we certainly are not living in a republic.

 

[Trip]

Yes, they did.

The best example for honest people is the Establishment Clause, which clearly binds Congress alone. Readings that bind the States are delusional at best.

(This is not to say that States would be wise to act otherwise, but obviously that Law was in no way written to bind them.)

If our legally enacted legislation my be granted imaginary language by a judicial oligarchy, no matter if it is benign or no, then we certainly are not living in a republic.

Yes, the Courts have seriously corrupted the establishment clause, but have done so by actually establishing legislation that prohibits the free expression of religion in whatever public and government place. The Constituition indicates "freedom of religion" and not "freedom from religion".

While the 1st Amendment clearly binds Congress, and clearly is directed at the federal congress, that is due to the Constitution's focus being the federal government, and not the exclusion of the states from any obligation to regard individual rights, and it is a reasonable extrapolation that the same would, and should, apply to state governments (legislatures) as well.

In fact Jefferson himself confirmed this in his letter to the Danbury Baptist church. The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut had sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against that state government establishing a religion. The concern of these Baptists was that they were religious minority in Connecticut, with it being predominantly Puritans, or English Protestants.

Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that the right to religious liberty was important, and like myself quoted the 1st Amendment but replaced "Congress" with "legislature" stating, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' "

Jefferson further supported this application of religious freedom to the states by indicating, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,..."

It is clear that Jefferson recognized the prohibition in the states of establishing a state religion by law as well.

 

[Master PO]

i going to stick up for what i said from the beginning, that the bill of rights was never intended for the states and only to provide proof, not with just the founders words, but also let the constitution speak for itself.

i stated before that the federalist , Hamilton and Madison both believed that a bill of rights was dangerous and not needed, because in their minds to make a written list of rights would define rights down to what was only on paper and to do that would limit rights of the people.

Though the idea for a bill of rights had been suggested at the end of the constitutional convention, the delegates wanted to go home and thought the suggestion unnecessary. The omission of a bill of rights became the main argument of the anti-federalists against the constitution. Though no state conditioned ratification of the constitution on a bill of rights, several states came close, and the issue almost prevented the constitution from being ratified. Some anti-federalists continued to fight the issue after the constitution had been ratified, and threatened the entire nation with another constitutional convention. This would likely be far more partisan than the first had been. Madison objected to a specific bill of rights for several reasons:

He thought it was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted,

that it was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights

and that at the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers.

Though few in the new congress wanted to debate a possible Bill of Rights for the next century, most thought that the Declaration of Independence, not the first ten constitutional amendments, constituted the true Bill of Rights, Madison pressed the issue. Congress was extremely busy with setting up the new government, most wanted to wait for the system to show its defects before amending the constitution, and the anti-federalist movements (which had demanded a new convention) had died out quickly once the constitution was ratified. Despite this, Madison still feared that the states would compel congress to call for a new constitutional convention, which they had the right to do.

He also believed that the constitution did not sufficiently protect the national government from democracy and parochialism (the defects he saw in the state governments), so he saw his amendments as a way to mitigate these problems. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his bill proposing amendments consisting of Nine Articles comprising up to 20 Amendments depending on how one counted. Madison initially proposed that the amendments would be incorporated into the body of the Constitution. Through an exhaustive campaign, he persuaded the House to pass most of his slate of amendments. The House rejected the idea of placing the amendments in the body of the Constitution and instead adopted 17 Amendments to be attached separately and sent this bill to the Senate. The Senate took up his slate of amendments, condensed them into eleven, and removed the language which Madison had included so that they would be integrated into the body of the constitution

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, ["Bills of rights ]. . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. ......therefore no bill of rights are needed.

what does the constitution itself say, about what Madison and Hamilton saw as the limited powers of our government

below are the powers of congress, are there any powers of congress which to deal directly with the people into the daily life's..in 1787?


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Above in bold is part of congress powers, and it states clearly --congress has no authority anywhere but d.c. or where the states and the federal government have agree for the creation of government buildings only, that it be illegal for the federal government to enter state lands, of private property becuase they have no legislative power over them.

below the Court Powers:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

the constitution mentions all Controversies with citizens, expect one, ...........there is nothing about Controversies between ......citizens and the Untied States, becuase in the founders mind, the way the constitution is written ...citizens and the federal government, do not intersect anywhere expect when it comes to pirates, counterfeiters or traitors.

in the federalist minds of the constitutional convention a bill of rights to secure the rights of the people from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only, was not needed , becuase if gave no powers to the new federal government involving the personal life's of the people.

 

[Master PO]

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.

The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that [federal] government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.

To demonstrate that Constitutional limits did not apply to states unless expressly stated, Marshall used the example of Article I, Sections 9 and 10:

The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that “no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.

The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (interpreted, however, to have the same meaning as the 5th amendment) to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.

Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture ("the common law"). The Supreme Court's ruling in Barron prevailed in federal courts, however, until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War. Gradually since then, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," as also incorporating -- or applying -- most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states, including the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment. Modern constitutional law prohibits state governments from taking private property without just compensation.

 

[Master PO]

True. but before the Civil War the Supreme Court also ruled that Blacks, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857))

It also held that the 1793 Fugitive Slave law was Constitutional and the Federal government had to enforce it. (See Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. 539 (1842))

The Constitution also allows for Amendment, and the reduced Congress was able to enact the 14th Amendment, which clearly applied to all States and territories. Subsequent SCOTUS rulings created to principle of "incorporation" using that Amendment as the basis.

The problem I have is with the presumption that these rights would not apply to the States without those rulings. That somehow because Supreme Court rulings clarify that they do, people think that this has somehow violated individual and/or States rights and sovereignty. But the people who proposed the Bill of Rights were activists in the various 13 States that opposed the original Constitution and wanted these rights clearly included to make sure the Federal government could not take them away from the people.

Therefore, they were already assumed to be rights held by the people, even regardless of State constitutional amendments which might deny or abridge them. Why would you take offense when the Bill of Rights is now clearly applicable to everyone? That NO ONE can deny these basic rights at the state or local level either? I'm confused by this.

the founders did not argue the states would violate rights in the constitutional convention, but only the new federal government.

if you want to say its offensive to me ...OK, because we have a federal document, which is supposed to be for the federal government only, not for states or the people.

we already have the states in the constitution being limited, and now you have people who believe "we the people" should be included in the constitution and be limited....IE.... the 14th amendment, where people believe business and people cannot discriminate.

 

[Trip]

i going to stick up for what i said from the beginning, that the bill of rights was never intended for the states and only to provide proof, not with just the founders words, but also let the constitution speak for itself.

i stated before that the federalist , Hamilton and Madison both believed that a bill of rights was dangerous and not needed, because in their minds to make a written list of rights would define rights down to what was only on paper and to do that would limit rights of the people.

That's really not what they indicate as the reason the BOR is dangerous. And furthermore the 9th Amendment clearly indicates there are other rights than those enumerated in the BOR, so this was abviously not an ongoing concern. .

Ernst, what you're doing is fabricating nonsense out of thin air, and using your bias to not actually do any sort of focused analysis of the founders' beliefs, with this thereby only serving as a crutch for your misconceptions about states rights. You started off by stating that you're going to "stick up for" what you said, but then you go in a long roundabout meandering that really does not address what you said, and the point of our disagreement, which is your belief that the individual rights, as recognized in the Bill of Rights (and elsewhere) really don't apply to the States, and each state can make up essentially whatever it wants, and deny individual rights.



The real issue here, the "enormous elephant in the room", is that our government is founded in unalienable individual rights, that are innate to the individual, and not granted by any government, and this is clearly and emphatically detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Given this, the states themselves have no more authority to deny or abrogate individual rights than does the federal government.

The Bill of rights you're addressing is in the Constitution, and your claim is that it doesn't apply to the states, so the claim that the it is somehow "dangerous" (ignoring that your expression of why it is dangerous is not really what Hamilton and Madison indicated), does not address the issue of the states.

You're focused on the various indications in the Bill of Rights indicating their application to the federal government (Congress), and misinterpreting this as "rights" (not that specific Bill of Rights) not applying to the states themselves, which is ludicrous. The Constitution itself is only addressing the forming of that federal government, and not the states themselves, thereby having only specific reference to that federal government in the Bill of Rights..

Nowhere does the Constitution indicate that the rights themselves (not the Bill of Rights) are not applicable to the states.

He also believed that the constitution did not sufficiently protect the national government from democracy and parochialism (the defects he saw in the state governments), so he saw his amendments as a way to mitigate these problems.

Uh, to my knowledge, none of the founders were particularly worried about protecting the national government from democracy.... What Madison wanted was not protecting the federal government from democracy, but giving the federal government dictatorial sovereignty to overwhelm the objections of the states, and Madison was entirely rejected in his view at the constitutional convention by every one of the other representatives, and I do not believe he ever utters even a hint of that view in the Federalist.

The reason the federal government is so deliberately hobbled and limited, is to protect both the people and the states from dictation of the many (democracy) through that federal government, as well as the dictation by a few elites in government (oligarchy).

Overall, you seem to have totally lost track of what our disagreement was, which is your claim that those unalienable individual rights may be annulled to that state occupants, by each state, if it is the state's desire to do so.

 

[Master PO]

That's really not what they indicate as the reason the BOR is dangerous. And furthermore the 9th Amendment clearly indicates there are other rights than those enumerated in the BOR, so this was abviously not an ongoing concern. .

Ernst, what you're doing is fabricating nonsense out of thin air, and using your bias to not actually do any sort of focused analysis of the founders' beliefs, with this thereby only serving as a crutch for your misconceptions about states rights. You started off by stating that you're going to "stick up for" what you said, but then you go in a long roundabout meandering that really does not address what you said, and the point of our disagreement, which is your belief that the individual rights, as recognized in the Bill of Rights (and elsewhere) really don't apply to the States, and each state can make up essentially whatever it wants, and deny individual rights.



The real issue here, the "enormous elephant in the room", is that our government is founded in unalienable individual rights, that are innate to the individual, and not granted by any government, and this is clearly and emphatically detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Given this, the states themselves have no more authority to deny or abrogate individual rights than does the federal government.

The Bill of rights you're addressing is in the Constitution, and your claim is that it doesn't apply to the states, so the claim that the it is somehow "dangerous" (ignoring that your expression of why it is dangerous is not really what Hamilton and Madison indicated), does not address the issue of the states.

You're focused on the various indications in the Bill of Rights indicating their application to the federal government (Congress), and misinterpreting this as "rights" (not that specific Bill of Rights) not applying to the states themselves, which is ludicrous. The Constitution itself is only addressing the forming of that federal government, and not the states themselves, thereby having only specific reference to that federal government in the Bill of Rights..


Nowhere does the Constitution indicate that the rights themselves (not the Bill of Rights) are not applicable to the states.

then i will ask you THEN , show me where the founders state a federal bill of rights ..that [a federal document].....is needed to protect rights of the people from the states....before the civil war when did our federal constitution speak to the states?

you make think it non sen-sense its not, what powers are given under article 1 section 8 to the congress OVER the people?

where is the authority in the u.s. constitution for its courts, for controversies between american citizens and the untied states?

these things are what Madison and Hamilton looked at, no delegated powers of congress or of the courts over individual citizens.......if the federal government has no authority over american citizens, why is a bill of rights needed?

the founders are arguing over the federal government and its powers, they are not arguing over the powers of the states, ......these men in the constitutional conventions are members of a state governments, are they going to argue, they need limits on their very own state government,............with a federal document?

rights are individual rights, that is why america has a republican government, and not a democratic one....which is why Madison is stating about the senate being in state hands and not in the peoples hands, becuase when the people have power they act as a collective body.

the house is a collective body by it very nature, becuase it is a democracy, the senate was in state hands and is a aristocracy, and becuase it is, it tempers the collective body of the house from passing laws based on the whims of the people, and Madison is stating in federalist 63

"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"

states are not denying people rights, unless you look at slaves and they were concerned property., states have constitutions with a bill of rights themselves, and they must follow the constitution of their state and secure the rights of the people, per their own constitution.

do you see this what i have posted many times?:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

TRANSLATION,: the states after adopting the constitution expressed a desire to prevent the misconstruction, and abuses of its constitutional powers, that declaratory and restrictive clauses be added, so it will give the states and the public, confidence in the new Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Uh, to my knowledge, none of the founders were particularly worried about protecting the national government from democracy.... What Madison wanted was not protecting the federal government from democracy, but giving the federal government dictatorial sovereignty to overwhelm the objections of the states, and Madison was entirely rejected in his view at the constitutional convention by every one of the other representatives, and I do not believe he ever utters even a hint of that view in the Federalist.

The reason the federal government is so deliberately hobbled and limited, is to protect both the people and the states from dictation of the many (democracy) through that federal government, as well as the dictation by a few elites in government (oligarchy).

Overall, you seem to have totally lost track of what our disagreement was, which is your claim that those unalienable individual rights may be annulled to that state occupants, by each state, if it is the state's desire to do so.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

Madison wrote an amendment to the Constitution, which would have given national sovereignty to the federal government over the states...it was rejected by the states.

the federal government is limited by the constitution by delegated powers, and by the structure of the government itself created by the constitution, which is why america was created with a mixed constitution, power is divided between the states and the people, this is to prevent democracy...one reason we did not have the popular vote.

you seem to think that rights are only secured by the federal government and no one else, ...governments are instituted among men to secure rights, and states are governments.

the federal bill of rights protects people from the federal government, a state bill of rights protects people from state governments, if a citizen of a state believes this rights have been violated by a state government , then that citizen takes his case to a federal government court, where the federal government has authority to hear "controversies between citizens and a state governments"....then the federal court looks at the state constitution with its bill of rights and judges the case, ...did the state violate its own constitution?

you are acting towards me like haymarket,.......... which you insist I must prove to you that the bill of rights, are not meant for the states, yet you have not given me any evidence where the founders [members of state governments] wanted a federal bill to apply to them.