- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yes. But as you know, the creation of thw 14th was in direct response to states abusing, infringing and ignoring the rights of (some of) their people. How do you suppose this be reconciled, if not for the expansion of the protections of the bill or rights?
That is, if the state abuses your rights, who else do you turn to if not the federal government?
As you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.
Again, as you know, part of the problem was the denial of the right to vote, both outright and by proxy.
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.It does say that this amendment may not be infringed.
When they make laws that infringe on our right to bear arms it is unconstitutional.
Sp screw the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with bearing arms.
I said nothing about owning a car. I said driving. In order to drive, legally, in Ohio, what are the rules, Goobie?
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.
False, it has everything to do with it. The fourteenth incorporates all rights to the states, which honestly was just a way of asserting that the federal is charged with enforcing rights even against the states rather than granting them. Historically, and Justice Thomas cited this; The fourteenth extended especially to voting and gun control because of the states intitially trying to deny those two crucial rights to freed slaves. So historically the 14th is critical to this case.
I kind of disagree with that, constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th.
False. The BoR did not apply to the states before the 14th. they didn't even apply to the States for years after the 14th. See Baron V. Baltimore foir before th e14th and United States v. Cruikshank for after the 14th (and specifically about the First and Second amendments).
False. The BoR did not apply to the states before the 14th. they didn't even apply to the States for years after the 14th. See Baron V. Baltimore foir before th e14th and United States v. Cruikshank for after the 14th (and specifically about the First and Second amendments).
I did - I was, however, responding to -your- responses.
True, but only when applied against the BOR amendments, in other words if amendments 11 and on are found to be a mistake they may be stricken by amendment later on, whereas you may not amend the constitution to abridge speech, repeal the second, allow unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The fourteenth however still binds the federal protections to the states.It says somewhere in the constitution to the effect that certain amendments can not be construed to infringe upon other amendments.
Correct, but as Tucker well pointed out we are at a point now where the states are testing BOR protections and now the federal is actually having to step in to correct that, much as I hate concentrated federal power the fourteenth when applied properly is actually something the fed is supposed to do.I kind of disagree with that, constitutional rights applied at the state and local level before the 14th. Section 1 of the 14th just made the freed slaves into US citizens so that states could not have an excuse to deny them constitutional rights.
True, but only when applied against the BOR amendments, in other words if amendments 11 and on are found to be a mistake they may be stricken by amendment later on, whereas you may not amend the constitution to abridge speech, repeal the second, allow unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The fourteenth however still binds the federal protections to the states.
Correct, but as Tucker well pointed out we are at a point now where the states are testing BOR protections and now the federal is actually having to step in to correct that, much as I hate concentrated federal power the fourteenth when applied properly is actually something the fed is supposed to do.
I don't have a problem with lifetime appointment of justices, you take the good with the bad. What I do have a problem with is that the checks on SCOTUS decisions are dependant on the SCOTUS not overturning the rewrite of a law, which is fine under an honest court, which we have mainly had in this country historically. The other thing that would be a great reform would be to make removal of justices easier, currently it would require a heinous crime to be committed against the people for a justice to be removed.....if we were serious there should be some lattitude for removing justices who routinely misinterpret or agendize the constitution they are sworn to uphold, of course that process would have to be tough.....the people should have that recourse.I agree that the 14th amendment did make the bill of rights stronger. Also it helped a lot to keep the supreme court in check.
There is much reform that should be done with all judges, including the supreme court. There is way too much conflict of interest and politics involved than their should be for equal justice to prevail.
Who did the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment?
Where does it say constitutional rights now apply at the state and local level?
They were a limitation on the federal government.
But, weren't they a limitation of the federal government to protect our rights?
That sentence doesn't make sense. As worded, it can mean that you are asking if the following: "The federal government's ability to protect our rights was limited by the BoR" is a true statement.
Or it could be you asking if the BoR was designed to Protect our Rights from being infringed by the Federal Government.
Could you please clarify what you are asking me?
Was not the bill of rights intended to protect our basic rights?
It was intended to be a limitation on the Federal Government's authority to infringe upon certain rights.
Yeah, that what I said.
No, that's not what you said.
Is two.:shrug:
No, you said "protect".
In order for the Bill of Rights to have been intended to protect certain rights, it would have had to grant authority to the Federal Government, not restrict authority form the federal government. In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly states that the bill of rights was restricting federal authority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?