| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2005 09:40:15 AM |
| Object: |
Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
"StephenJ" <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
:|I've heard that the 14th amendment makes the bill of rights protections
:|binding on state and local governments.
:|
:|Could someone tell me what clause in A14 does this? Or is it something that
:|courts have inferred via interpretation over time? If so, can anyone name a
:|case?
:|
:|Thanks!
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge John Roberts for AJ [or not] [was: 14th amendment applies BOR to states?] |
21 Jul 2005 07:41:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Roberts has said that "reading" un-enumerated "rights" into laws
passed by congress, or "interpreting" them as constitutionally backed
is wrong.
He is just repeating what the Constitution has been saying for 215
years.
Roberts is of the judicial temperament to side with Scalia, Thomas,
Rhenquist on cases emanating from Roe v Wade, which has to do with
privacy. The "un-enumerated" right to privacy entails thousands of
nuanced cases at law ranging from search and seizure to birth control,
to self-incrimination.
Roe v Wade has nothing to do with privacy but everything to do with
un-enumerated powers that are reserved to the states only and not the
supreme court.
Judical intellect he may be, he still has a "problem" with applying
the due process clause of the 14th amendment to states
Whats the problem with "due process"? The author of the 14th defined
due process so that even the most mentally challenged would know how it
is to be applied.
Roberts own advocacy shows that he would have "strictured" the court
in decisions that would have limited the interpretation of law to
conform to 18th century, rural, agrarian,
pre-industrialization/pre-technology society. No such constitutional
law supports the notion of that belief.
The constitution itself limits it interpretation by its own supreme
interpretation rules that liberals find too easy to disregard.
I want my republican form of govt returned as guranteed by the
constitution....you looney liberals can go find yourselves some other
country in which to spread your form of socialists fantasies and
fictional theories of law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge John Roberts for AJ [or not] [was: 14th amendment applies BOR to states?] |
21 Jul 2005 10:52:45 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2005 17:41:12 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
Roberts has said that "reading" un-enumerated "rights" into laws
passed by congress, or "interpreting" them as constitutionally backed
is wrong.
He is just repeating what the Constitution has been saying for 215
years.
What kind of babbling is that?
DId the constitution say that blacks were equal?
What the constitution "says" is what the USSC says it says.
Roberts is of the judicial temperament to side with Scalia, Thomas,
Rhenquist on cases emanating from Roe v Wade, which has to do with
privacy. The "un-enumerated" right to privacy entails thousands of
nuanced cases at law ranging from search and seizure to birth control,
to self-incrimination.
Roe v Wade has nothing to do with privacy
Well, run to someone important and tell them quick. Because every
legal scholar knows that it emanates from YOUR right to privacy.
Judical intellect he may be, he still has a "problem" with applying
the due process clause of the 14th amendment to states
Whats the problem with "due process"? The author of the 14th defined
due process so that even the most mentally challenged would know how it
is to be applied.
Another babbler. Do you know Dana Raffaniello? You and him ought to
get together to pool your miseralbly deficient intellect into a half a
brain cell
You couldn't discuss your way out of a fucking pickle barrel.
The constitution itself limits it interpretation by its own supreme
interpretation rules that liberals find too easy to disregard.
What kind of idiot are you? How does a constitution "interpret'
itself?
I want my republican form of govt returned as guranteed by the
constitution....
THe constitution doesn't guarantee a fucking "republican form of
government"
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge John Roberts for AJ [or not] [was: 14th amendment applies BOR to states?] |
21 Jul 2005 09:38:53 PM |
|
|
The Bandit wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
Roberts has said that "reading" un-enumerated "rights" into laws
passed by congress, or "interpreting" them as constitutionally backed
is wrong.
He is just repeating what th e Constitution has been saying for 215
years.
LOL.
Roberts is of the judicial temperament to side with Scalia, Thomas,
Rhenquist on cases emanating from Roe v Wade, which has to do with
privacy. The "un-enumerated" right to privacy entails thousands of
nuanced cases at law ranging from search and seizure to birth control,
to self-incrimination.
Roe v Wade has nothing to do with privacy but everything to do with
un-enumerated powers that are reserved to the states only and no t the
supreme court.
Judical intellect he may be, he still has a "problem" with applying
the due process clause of the 14th amendment to states
Whats the problem with "due process"? The author of the 14th defined
due process so that even the most mentally challenged would know how it
is to be applied.
Once again you try to promote your unsupported opinion
to the level of fact. It is no surprise that people who
know more about it than you do disagree:
"The many due process cases that come before the federal
courts--involving prisons, schools, social security, and
public employment, among other areas--testify to the
continuing centrality of this area of law and the
undiminished controversy surrounding it." -- The Oxford
Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.
ed. Kermit L. Hall. New York: Oxford University Press,
1992. p. 236
Roberts own advocacy shows that he would have "strictured" the court
in decisions that would have limited the interpretation of law to
conform to 18th century, rural, agr arian,
pre-industrialization/pre-technology society. No such constitutional
law supports the notion of that belief.
The constitution itself limits it interpretation by its own supreme
interpretation rules that liberals find too easy to disregard.
Oh please. Scalia is a "liberal"?
I want my republican form of govt returned as guranteed by the
constitution....
The Constitution says that Congress has the power:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money
to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
It seems your republican Congress is in violation of this
Constitutional principle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge John Roberts for AJ [or not] [was: 14th amendment applies BOR to states?] |
22 Jul 2005 01:35:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:50:16 -0500,
wrote
(in article <lrjvd19tntbttb4525vfunfrla0aont2pe@4ax.com>):
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:39:30 -0500, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:21, wrote:
Had those Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Bork, Owens (and probably this
new nut)
Would you be so kind as to back up your "probably this new nut".
Judge Roberts appears to be the most qualified nominee for Associate
Justice
(or CJ, for that matter) in decades.
Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas make me ashamed but - so far, anyway -
I
don't see Judge Roberts as being in that class.
Roberts has said that "reading" un-enumerated "rights" into laws
passed by congress, or "interpreting" them as constitutionally backed
is wrong.
Bork was borked because HE saw NO constitutionally legal underpinning
for (among the hundreds) Marbury v. Madison; Gideon v. Wainwright,
and brown v. Board of Education.
Roberts is of the judicial temperament to side with Scalia, Thomas,
Rhenquist on cases emanating from Roe v Wade, which has to do with
privacy. The "un-enumerated" right to privacy entails thousands of
nuanced cases at law ranging from search and seizure to birth control,
to self-incrimination.
Judical intellect he may be, he still has a "problem" with applying
the due process clause of the 14th amendment to states---which in
effect elevates "states rights" BACK to it's high status. States
Rights gave us segregation, slavery, discrimination, voting tests,
etc, 'un'-equal opportunity, and plastering religious crap like the
"10 Commandments" all over institutions---a particularily odious act
when law enforcement used to drag blacks past them on their way to
lynchings
The claim still remains.
Roberts own advocacy shows that he would have "strictured" the court
in decisions that would have limited the interpretation of law to
conform to 18th century, rural, agrarian,
pre-industrialization/pre-technology society. No such constitutional
law supports the notion of that belief.
Couple that with his rulings on the role of government in regulation
of business and wealthy individuals, and we have a "return" to pre
1929 stock market disaster and depression policies.
Anonymous Poster, you have nothing original
to say and you say it over and over and over.
Swallow and regurgitate, swallow and regurgitate;
it's a good thing you're swallowing Pablum, else
you'd choke.
Were you severely punished that time - years
and years and years ago - when you had your
once in a lifetime original thought?
You seem never to have recovered.
---------------------------------------
I try to remember to re-read anything I post because I don't type
and make every mistake possible.
And re-reading this posting, I suddently realized that you - because
of a weak mind and an, apparently, lifelong love affair with total
irrationality - are, in my opinion, incapoable of having written
what you posted.
If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to apologize - because I'd certainly
rather be wrong than have someone be a thief - but I'm speculating
that I - or someone else - will find - in the next week or so - that
"your words" aren't "your words".
And that /my/ words earlier - "honor and integrity" - are not as
common as I - and, hopefully, many - wish.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business
professor at Harvard Business School,
Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls our
President as "not just as a terrible
student but as spoiled, loutish and a
pathological liar".
===================================================================
At first, the "Southern strategy" was a numerical success. Some of
the senior Republican senators at the impeachment trial today are
Southern Democrats wooed into the GOP -- Trent Lott of Mississippi,
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and
Phil Gramm of Texas. All have used blatant appeals to intolerance
to score political points throughout their careers.
In the early 1990s, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke won
the Louisiana GOP gubernatorial nomination and was beaten by Democrat
Edwin Edwards, who was implicated in some shady dealings.
The infamous Bayou bumper sticker that helped Edwards get elected--
"Vote for the Crook, Not the Kook"--speaks volumes on the public mood
toward the (impeachment) showdown today.
Edward Tafel---Log Cabin Republicans
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
25 Jul 2005 02:02:03 PM |
|
|
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> :|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>
:|> * Fourteenth Amendment
:|> http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
:|>
:|> from the same article that is cited above
:|>
:|> When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, only the states were empowered
:|> to deal with religion. However, in 1868, following the Civil War, the
:|> Constitution was amended so as to make the First Amendment, and in fact the
:|> first eight amendments, applicable to the various states. The Fourteenth
:|> Amendment contains the following statement:
:|
:|how redunant - the 9th already in effect says the above.
:|why have the 14th when the 9th affirms the same rights?
It didn't however you seem hung up on the 9th
Barron v Baltimore ended any speculations that any part of the BORs applied
to the states
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
20 Jul 2005 05:14:49 AM |
|
|
gaffo wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> >:|> * Fourteenth Amendment
:|> >:|> http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the aut=
hor of
:|> >:|the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope =
o f
:|> >:|application.
:|>
:|>
:|> Too bad you can't read.
:|> The article cited above is a indepth extensive examination, pro an=
d con,
:|> of the topic.
:|
:|Well geez then, if they had really read and considered all the c ited
:|sources then there shouldn't have been no questions, because Bingham
:|and the committee of the whole left no doubts behind as to what the
:|fourteenth encompassed.
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
:|the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|application.
:|
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
from the same article that is cited above
When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, only the states were empow=
ered
to deal with religion. However, in 1868, following the Civil War, the
Constitution was amended so as to make the Fir s t Amendment, and in fa=
ct the
first eight amendments, applicable to the various states. The Fourteenth
Amendment contains the following statement:
"No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges and immun ities of citizens =
of
the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, libe=
rty
or property without due process of law...."
how redunant - the 9th already in effect says the above.
Who sez so?
why have the 14th when the 9th affirms the same rights?
Instead of assuming your own conclusion, why don't
you try arguing for it? I know that is a bit more
difficult that just assuming that your opinion is
undisputed truth.
During the congressional disc ussion of the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment, the amendment's floor manager, Senator J. M. Howard (R-Mich.=
),
stated in explaining it, that "to these privileges and immunities . . .
should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first
eight amendments to the Constitution." He also said: "The great object =
of
the first section of the amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power=
of
the states and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental
guarantees."(18)
again........what part of the 9th did this Mr Howard not understand?
Gee, could it be that it is your understanding that is
lacking? Nooo, not a chance, huh. Ok, so how do
you know what unenumerated rights the 9th refers to?
No assumptions, please. Just argue for what rights
it refers to and why you think your opinion couldn't
be wrong.
In similar fashion, the House of Representatives understood that the
purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the Bill of Rights
applicable to the states.
and the 9th didn't?
Not according to the Supreme Court--Barron v. Baltimore
in 1833--it didn't.
Rep, John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by
Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated th=
at
the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in w=
hich
the Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to
the states.(19)
a ruling with is in d irect conflict with the Spirit of the 9th!!!!!!!!
Who sez so?
I'd love to read the dissenting opinion on this one!
There was none. It was 7-0. The court reaffirmed that holding
in Permoli v. New Orleans (1845)
=B5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 10:02:51 AM |
|
|
I notice that you aren't mentioning them either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 10:37:59 AM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
I notice that you aren't mentioning them either.
Oh I have, dozens of times, verbatim for verbatim, ask anyone in these
NGs if you are too lazy to search.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 10:50:53 AM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121096279.654255.309030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
I notice that you aren't mentioning them either.
Oh I have, dozens of times, verbatim for verbatim, ask anyone in these
NGs if you are too lazy to search.
translation: I'm too busy hiding.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 05:01:04 PM |
|
|
The Bandit wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
I notice that you aren't mentioning them either.
Oh I have, dozens of times
But you are too lazy to do it here. If you don't care to
post it then don't expect anyone here to care more about
your argument than you do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 12:37:54 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
application.
But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
So your position is that the State government have more power over
individuals than the courts allow. You think that liberals want to
restrict the governments actions and you object to that.
And let us all recognize the important uses of the 14th Amendment.
Brown vs Topeka was an application of the 14th. Bandit objects to
preventing the states from discriminating on the basis of race. The
history of states rights has always centered around that issue. The
states want the right to discriminate against blacks and object to the
courts preventing them.
Of course there are other applications. Gideon, for example, a
decision that gave people the right to have a lawyer, used the 14th.
So Bandit thinks that the states should be able to try people even if
they can't afford a lawyer. Miranda used the 14th. Bandit thinks that
the States should have the power to arrest and interrogate people
without even telling them they can have a lawyer.
Griswald used the 14th. Griswald said that there are areas of a
persons life so private that the states have to stay out. Griswald
prevented the state of CT from restricting the sale of condoms to
married couples. Expect Griswald, not Roe, to be overturned with the
next two justices. First, overturning Griswald allows the government
to tell you lots more about how and when and with what you can have
sex. There are already attempts to get this going. That is why we see
an upsurge (sorry for that), in laws and cases involving vibrators.
They want to prepare an argument for overturning Griswald. Then they
can attack Roe and the Sodomy case from the bottom (sorry again).
Bandit probably think it is good for the government to control those
aspects of people lives. But, at the least, he thinks that the states
should have that right even if the federal government does not.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 01:48:28 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
:|<no-reply@idexer.com> in
:|<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
:|
:|>buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>> * Fourteenth Amendment
:|>> http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
:|>
:|>Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
:|>the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|>application.
:|>
:|>But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
:|>limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
:|>attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
:|>since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
:|>their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
:|
:|So your position is that the State government have more power over
:|individuals than the courts allow. You think that liberals want to
:|restrict the governments actions and you object to that.
:|
:|And let us all recognize the important uses of the 14th Amendment.
:|Brown vs Topeka was an application of the 14th. Bandit objects to
:|preventing the states from discriminating on the basis of race. The
:|history of states rights has always centered around that issue. The
:|states want the right to discriminate against blacks and object to the
:|courts preventing them.
:|
:|Of course there are other applications. Gideon, for example, a
:|decision that gave people the right to have a lawyer, used the 14th.
:|So Bandit thinks that the states should be able to try people even if
:|they can't afford a lawyer. Miranda used the 14th. Bandit thinks that
:|the States should have the power to arrest and interrogate people
:|without even telling them they can have a lawyer.
:|
:|Griswald used the 14th. Griswald said that there are areas of a
:|persons life so private that the states have to stay out. Griswald
:|prevented the state of CT from restricting the sale of condoms to
:|married couples. Expect Griswald, not Roe, to be overturned with the
:|next two justices. First, overturning Griswald allows the government
:|to tell you lots more about how and when and with what you can have
:|sex. There are already attempts to get this going. That is why we see
:|an upsurge (sorry for that), in laws and cases involving vibrators.
:|They want to prepare an argument for overturning Griswald. Then they
:|can attack Roe and the Sodomy case from the bottom (sorry again).
:|Bandit probably think it is good for the government to control those
:|aspects of people lives. But, at the least, he thinks that the states
:|should have that right even if the federal government does not.
Very good point. Theses are the things that Banfit and others of his ilk
obejct to
The following list shows when each provision in the Bill of Rights was
incorporated in the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation -- Chicago, Burlington &
Qunicy Railway Company v Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652
(19250 [dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679
(1931)
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case -- [my info might
be wrong on the case in this one because it lists the case as 1963, ]
Peterson v City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963)
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310
U.S. 296 (1940)
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment -- Everson v Board Of
Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial -- Oliver, In re, 333 U.S. 257
(1948)
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure-- Wolf v
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449
(1958)
If anyone wants the case name for the following incorporations, please
email us.
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information:
The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court Has Ruled on Issues from
Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random House (1992) pp. 258,
260.
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 10:38:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|On 11 Jul 2005 07:57:23 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
:|<no-reply@idexer.com> in
:|<1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
:|
:|> wrote:
:|>> * Fourteenth Amendment
:|>> http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
:|>
:|>Oh how convenient that this page ommits any reference by the author of
:|>the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|>application.
:|>
:|>But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
:|>limitations imposed upon the 14th by the guy who wrote it or draw
:|>attention to the framers own construction they left for courts to use
:|>since it would burst the liberal bubble from out under them and expose
:|>their quacky juriprudence for what it really is: quakery.
:|
:|So your position is that the State government have more power over
:|individuals than the courts allow. You think that liberals want to
:|restrict the governments actions and you object to that.
:|
:|And let us all recognize the important uses of the 14th Amendment.
:|Brown vs Topeka was an application of the 14th. Bandit objects to
:|preventing the states from discriminating on the basis of race. The
:|history of states rights has always centered around that issue. The
:|states want the right to discriminate against blacks and object to the
:|courts preventing them.
:|
:|Of course there are other applications. Gideon, for example, a
:|decision that gave people the right to have a lawyer, used the 14th.
:|So Bandit thinks that the states should be able to try people even if
:|they can't afford a lawyer. Miranda used the 14th. Bandit thinks that
:|the States should have the power to arrest and interrogate people
:|without even telling them they can have a lawyer.
:|
:|Griswald used the 14th. Griswald said that there are areas of a
:|persons life so private that the states have to stay out. Griswald
:|prevented the state of CT from restricting the sale of condoms to
:|married couples. Expect Griswald, not Roe, to be overturned with the
:|next two justices. First, overturning Griswald allows the government
:|to tell you lots more about how and when and with what you can have
:|sex. There are already attempts to get this going. That is why we see
:|an upsurge (sorry for that), in laws and cases involving vibrators.
:|They want to prepare an argument for overturning Griswald. Then they
:|can attack Roe and the Sodomy case from the bottom (sorry again).
:|Bandit probably think it is good for the government to control those
:|aspects of people lives. But, at the least, he thinks that the states
:|should have that right even if the federal government does not.
Very good point. Theses are the things that Banfit and others of his ilk
obejct to
The following list shows when each provision in the Bill of Rights was
incorporated in the 14th Amendment:
* (5) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation -- Chicago, Burlington &
Qunicy Railway Company v Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
* (1) 1925 -- Freedom of Speech -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652
(19250 [dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]
* (1) 1931 -- Freedom of the Press -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679
(1931)
* (6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case -- [my info might
be wrong on the case in this one because it lists the case as 1963, ]
Peterson v City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963)
* (1) 1937 -- Freedom of Assembly -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)
* (1) 1940 -- Free Exercise of Religion -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310
U.S. 296 (1940)
* (1) 1947 -- Ban on Religious Establishment -- Everson v Board Of
Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
* (4) 1948 -- Right to public trial -- Oliver, In re, 333 U.S. 257
(1948)
* (4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure-- Wolf v
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
* (1) 1958 -- Freedom of Association -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449
(1958)
If anyone wants the case name for the following incorporations, please
email us.
* (4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
* (8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
* (6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
* (5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
* (6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
* (6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
* (6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
* (6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
* (5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
* (6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
* (6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
* (6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
Source of Information:
The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court Has Ruled on Issues from
Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random House (1992) pp. 258,
260.
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
to bad the 14th was never properly ratifed ;-(. If it had been your
provided rulings would have the Rule of Law behind them.
oh well..
--
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
12 Jul 2005 11:03:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:38:24 -0500, gaffo wrote
(in article <QWGAe.503$c41.97@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>):
to bad the 14th was never properly ratifed ;-(. If it had been your
provided rulings would have the Rule of Law behind them.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the laws, mores and traditions of those
of us in the United States of America.
How are things in North Korea these days? Eaten any good trees lately?
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
13 Jul 2005 05:45:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|Gray Shockley wrote:
:|> > to bad the 14th was never properly ratifed ;-(. If it had been your
:|> > provided rulings would have the Rule of Law behind them.
:|>
:|>
:|> Apparently, you are not familiar with the laws, mores and traditions of those
:|> of us in the United States of America.
:|>
:|> How are things in North Korea these days? Eaten any good trees lately?
:|
:|He does have a point. Southern states didn't vote on
:|it. But that's because they weren't states at the time.
If you or he feels he has a point you will have to take it back even
further.
Would you claim that the US is a illegal nation?
If you want to be technical, it is illegal,
(1) The men in Philly ignored their mandate and illegally created a new
nation.
(2) To change the Articles of Confederation required the yea of all 13
members. The Constitution only required 9 for ratify. The fact is the
Constitution was ratified and put into effect, thus replacing the AOC with
only 11 yea votes originally. Two stated refused to join the new nation
under the Constitution originally.
Thus if you want to get really super technical, the US was not created via
the legal methods outlined by existing law of the day and instructions
given. .
No one is going to prevail trying to claim the US is illegal lacking the
force of law as no one is going to prevail claiming that selective
incorporation via the 14th amendment is illegal and lacking the force of
law.
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
17 Jul 2005 09:54:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:
:|Gray Shockley wrote:
:|> > to bad the 14th was never properly ratifed ;-(. If it had been your
:|> > provided rulings would have the Rule of Law behind them.
:|>
:|>
:|> Apparently, you are not familiar with the laws, mores and traditions of those
:|> of us in the United States of America.
:|>
:|> How are things in North Korea these days? Eaten any good trees lately?
:|
:|He does have a point. Southern states didn't vote on
:|it. But that's because they weren't states at the time.
If you or he feels he has a point you will have to take it back even
further.
Would you claim that the US is a illegal nation?
If you want to be technical, it is illegal,
(1) The men in Philly ignored their mandate and illegally created a new
nation.
(2) To change the Articles of Confederation required the yea of all 13
members. The Constitution only required 9 for ratify. The fact is the
Constitution was ratified and put into effect, thus replacing the AOC with
only 11 yea votes originally. Two stated refused to join the new nation
under the Constitution originally.
Thus if you want to get really super technical, the US was not created via
the legal methods outlined by existing law of the day and instructions
given. .
No one is going to prevail trying to claim the US is illegal lacking the
force of law as no one is going to prevail claiming that selective
incorporation via the 14th amendment is illegal and lacking the force of
law.
you point is taken - however this is a grey scale. and your example,
while not irrelivant - does not have as much of a stench of illegality
as the improper ratification of the 14th does.
so we can only conclude that you do not support a proper ratification
amendment process as set for in article 5.
correct?
you reject article 5 as void?
--
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
18 Jul 2005 10:43:39 AM |
|
|
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>
:|> If you or he feels he has a point you will have to take it back even
:|> further.
:|>
:|> Would you claim that the US is a illegal nation?
:|>
:|> If you want to be technical, it is illegal,
:|>
:|> (1) The men in Philly ignored their mandate and illegally created a new
:|> nation.
:|> (2) To change the Articles of Confederation required the yea of all 13
:|> members. The Constitution only required 9 for ratify. The fact is the
:|> Constitution was ratified and put into effect, thus replacing the AOC with
:|> only 11 yea votes originally. Two stated refused to join the new nation
:|> under the Constitution originally.
:|>
:|> Thus if you want to get really super technical, the US was not created via
:|> the legal methods outlined by existing law of the day and instructions
:|> given. .
:|>
:|> No one is going to prevail trying to claim the US is illegal lacking the
:|> force of law as no one is going to prevail claiming that selective
:|> incorporation via the 14th amendment is illegal and lacking the force of
:|> law.
:|
:|
:|
:|you point is taken - however this is a grey scale. and your example,
:|while not irrelivant - does not have as much of a stench of illegality
:|as the improper ratification of the 14th does.
:|
In your opinion which I don't agree with.
I will offer you this:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/4e702a40be6279ed?hl=en&
Oct 19 2004, 6:39 am
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, misc.education
From: -
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:39:53 -0400
Local: Tues,Oct 19 2004 6:39 am
Subject: Re: Public education via the *Ordinances* (was Re: DUBYA DOES IT
AGAIN)
bondr...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|>Based on your ideology all of the following would be unconstitutional:
:|>
:|>(1) The United States since it was created illegally. The men who framed
:|>the U S Constitution were committing treason and acting without
:|>authority. They staged a bloodless revolution.
:|
:|Oh my. "snip" more fallacies of distraction, attempts to "bury the opposition"
:|in irrelevent diatribe, some previously addressed in other threads.
Actually you snipped that which jams it in your ear, which is par for the
course
Remember this, this is what you snipped and called irrelevant:
Remember the topic? You are claiming something to be unconstitutional,
having no authority. Well, without addressing that claim of yours here, I
did provide something that was illegal thus should have been
unconstitutional, having no authority, yet how many people today are
running around saying the U S of A doesn't exist, has no authority is
unconstitutional?
Not many if any.
but the following is far from being irrelevant:
----------------------------------
I begin with the conviction that the Constitution is a law binding the
judges no less than the other officials whose actions the courts undertake
to review. That is what the Constitution itself says,4 and the Constitution
is the source from which federal courts derive their powers. It is also the
express basis on which the Supreme Court has claimed the power of judicial
review.5
4. U.S. CONST. art. Vl: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ......
5. See infra chapter 3, discussing Marbury v. Madison. The pedigree
of the Constitution itself contains a significant blemish, for it took
effect upon the approval of conventions in nine states despite an express
provision of existing law that the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation
could be altered only with the consent of the legislatures of all
thirteen. Compare U.S. CONST. art. VII with Articles of Confederation,
art. 13, Act of July 9, 177&, 1 Stat. 4, S-9. The interesting question why
one should treat as law an act arguably illegal in its inception is
fortunately beyond the scope of the present inquiry. One rather formalistic
response is that judges and other officials have sworn to do so, U.S.
CONST. art. Vl. Functional claims of repose and stability are also as
relevant here as in the case of erroneous judicial precedents.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Constitution in the Supreme Court, The Frist
Hundred Years, 1789-1888, David P. Currie, University of Chicago Press.
(1985) p. xii)
**************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
mind and that was clear to Washington, who realized that if anything
effectual were to be done, it would have to break the terms of the
Articles.1 Among the many reasons Washington had for resisting the project,
this was the greatest-it would involve its participants in the breaking of
their oaths of allegiance to the Articles. That was-in one plausible
interpretation of what they were up to treason. We call the meeting in
Philadelphia, retrospectively, the Constitutional Convention, since it
produced a new constitution. Its participants could not have called it
that, since they could not admit they were up to any such nefarious
business. While the meeting was being held, "the constitution" was still
the word regularly used for the Articles. What they were holding was really
an anticonstitutional convention.
If other delegates, less clearheaded than Washington, showed up at
Philadelphia in 1787 unaware of the meeting's subversive nature, they had a
rude awakening when Edmund Randolph presented the "Virginia Plan" for
consideration. This was based on a draft by Madison, and it recommended
abrogation of the Articles, not amendment of them. For a start, it proposed
that a new constitution must be ratified by special conventions, not by
state legislatures (the only means allowed under the Articles). Even more
stunning, the federal government would be empowered to veto laws passed by
state legislatures, a denial of the state sovereignty expressly reserved in
the Articles (10.16-17). The pretense that this was a plan to "correct" the
Articles was transparently false. The convention had to go into secret
session, and remain there for its whole time of meeting. It even had to
move to the second floor of the State House, so no one could overhear what
they were doing. (The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Against a drumbeat of criticism directed at "the dark conclave,"
Washington himself, as presiding officer, strictly monitored the secrecy
provision until the final document was released, and the delegates scuttled
nervously away from the scene of the crime. Critics of the document were
probably right when they said that the members of the convention would have
been denounced for treason had not "great names" given them
cover-Franklin's name and, especially, Washington's. It would take great
temerity to call them enemies of their country. One of Madison's greatest
services to America was his help in ensuring Washington's attendance at the
convention. He negotiated the matter with great delicacy. When Washington
turned down a first request that he attend, Madison cooperated with Edmund
Randolph (then the governor of Virginia) to appoint the general as leader
of the Virginia delegation. He urged Washington, even if he did not plan to
accept the offer, not to reject it immediately, in case some emergency
should arise that would make him reconsider (9.224). Madison knew that if
Washington's name were standing as the presumed head of delegation, that
might convince other states that this was a serious endeavor. If this ploy
did not work, the convention would be called off, and Washington would not
have committed himself to a failure. If, on the other hand, other states
came aboard (and Madison was working in Congress to bring that about), this
fact could be reported to Washington as a spur for his attendance (9.31 S).
SOURCE: James Madison Garry Wills Times Books, (2002) pp. 25-26
****************************************
REBUPLICS ANCIENT AND MODERN - INVENTIONS OF PRUDENCE:
CONSTITUTING THE AMERICAN REGIME, Paul A. Rahe, Chapel Hill, 1994,
page 130:
"Indeed, in 1787, Madison demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for
revolutionary action. For, in effect, he helped stage a second
American revolution when he masterminded the effort to persuade the
federal convention to ignore its commission, to jettison the Articles
of Confederation, and to propose an entirely new system of
government--which would be ratified not in accord with established
legal procedures for amendment spelled out in the articles but by the
people of the United States acting outside the bounds of law through
specially elected conventions."
**************************************************
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
17 Jul 2005 11:09:10 AM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote:
:|gaffo wrote:
:|
:|>
:|> There is a gret website which covers all the events leadig up to the
:|> ratification of the 14th - sadly I've lost it:
:|>
:|
:|
:|
:|See the Congressional Record -- House -- June 13, 1967 H7161 for a start
:|gaffo.
:|
:|http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.htm
You are claiming that the Congressional record of 1967 sheds some
important light on the 14th Amendment?
Why not start with this:
Fourteenth Amendment
Selective Incorporation
We could discuss this topic for years. People have been discussing this
topic for years. Thus, we have decided that the best course to take here is
to provide some limited information and a lot of reference material
allowing those seriously interested in this topic to do their own research.
The reference material is pretty evenly divided between the pro and con
sides of this issue.
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Thjr above contains a vast amounts of referecnes to primary source
documentation along with some primary sounce documentation. It also
contaisn a vast amount of secondary source reference material if the form
of books books, articles and the like from across the specturm.
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
17 Jul 2005 04:32:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote:
:|gaffo wrote:
:|
:|>
:|> There is a gret website which covers all the events leadig up to the
:|> ratification of the 14th - sadly I've lost it:
:|>
:|
:|
:|
:|See the Congressional Record -- House -- June 13, 1967 H7161 for a start
:|gaffo.
:|
:|http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/14amrec.htm
You are claiming that the Congressional record of 1967 sheds some
important light on the 14th Amendment?
Why not start with this:
Fourteenth Amendment
Selective Incorporation
We could discuss this topic for years. People have been discussing this
topic for years. Thus, we have decided that the best course to take here is
to provide some limited information and a lot of reference material
allowing those seriously interested in this topic to do their own research.
The reference material is pretty evenly divided between the pro and con
sides of this issue.
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
Thjr above contains a vast amounts of referecnes to primary source
documentation along with some primary sounce documentation. It also
contaisn a vast amount of secondary source reference material if the form
of books books, articles and the like from across the specturm.
That's where witting something short isn't as good as speaking, it's
harder to convey the thought process.
I'm claiming that document which had that title at that link is a place
to start researching the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
The same document can be found posted on at least 14 web pages. I
didn't check any more and that one was the last one I had open at the
time, that's why I used that link. The doc does contain many facts (not
that I know it's 100% accurate) and it has an extensive bib at the end.
I only did a quick scan of the link you posted, but it seems to be about
the "incorporation" and understanding of the 14th, not it's ratification
process.
Whether ratified or not the 14th Amendment was an expression of the
public feelings at the time.
Read the Civil Rights Act of 1868, it contains a lot of the same
language as the 14th Amendment.
I haven't made any claims pro or con concerning the 14th Amendment, only
that it's ratification was not as it should of been.
The "rebellion" was declared over by the President and the Congress.
The 13th Amendment was given to the all the States, including the
southern ones, for ratification--but when the 14th was given to the same
southern States and they refused to ratify it, they were declared not to
be States.
Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts and two States revoked their
prior approval of the 14th, which Congress ignored.
I can't find my reference right now, but as best I recall, this issue
was brought before the Supreme Court and their ruling was that the
improper ratification was a non-issue since the 14th had been part of US
legal jurisprudence for so long.
Like I said, I haven't made any claims that the 14th Amendment is good
or bad, or that selective incorporation, full incorporation, or no
incorporation is right and proper but that it's ratification was not
done properly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
18 Jul 2005 10:43:33 AM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote:
:|Like I said, I haven't made any claims that the 14th Amendment is good
:|or bad, or that selective incorporation, full incorporation, or no
:|incorporation is right and proper but that it's ratification was not
:|done properly.
Guess what?
Law says wise and guess what carries thwe day, your opinion or law?
Hint, not your opinion.
But here, you can get upset about this too:
Would you claim that the US is a illegal nation?
If you want to be technical, it is illegal,
(1) The men in Philly ignored their mandate and illegally created a new
nation.
(2) To change the Articles of Confederation required the yea of all 13
members. The Constitution only required 9 for ratify. The fact is the
Constitution was ratified and put into effect, thus replacing the AOC with
only 11 yea votes originally. Two stated refused to join the new nation
under the Constitution originally.
Thus if you want to get really super technical, the US was not created via
the legal methods outlined by existing law of the day and instructions
given. .
No one is going to prevail trying to claim the US is illegal lacking the
force of law as no one is going to prevail claiming that selective
incorporation via the 14th amendment is illegal and lacking the force of
law.
**********************************************************************************
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
:|you point is taken - however this is a grey scale. and your example,
:|while not irrelivant - does not have as much of a stench of illegality
:|as the improper ratification of the 14th does.
:|
In your opinion which I don't agree with.
I will offer you this:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/4e702a40be6279ed?hl=en&
Oct 19 2004, 6:39 am
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, misc.education
From: -
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:39:53 -0400
Local: Tues,Oct 19 2004 6:39 am
Subject: Re: Public education via the *Ordinances* (was Re: DUBYA DOES IT
AGAIN)
bondr...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|>Based on your ideology all of the following would be unconstitutional:
:|>
:|>(1) The United States since it was created illegally. The men who framed
:|>the U S Constitution were committing treason and acting without
:|>authority. They staged a bloodless revolution.
:|
:|Oh my. "snip" more fallacies of distraction, attempts to "bury the opposition"
:|in irrelevent diatribe, some previously addressed in other threads.
Actually you snipped that which jams it in your ear, which is par for the
course
Remember this, this is what you snipped and called irrelevant:
Remember the topic? You are claiming something to be unconstitutional,
having no authority. Well, without addressing that claim of yours here, I
did provide something that was illegal thus should have been
unconstitutional, having no authority, yet how many people today are
running around saying the U S of A doesn't exist, has no authority is
unconstitutional?
Not many if any.
but the following is far from being irrelevant:
----------------------------------
I begin with the conviction that the Constitution is a law binding the
judges no less than the other officials whose actions the courts undertake
to review. That is what the Constitution itself says,4 and the Constitution
is the source from which federal courts derive their powers. It is also the
express basis on which the Supreme Court has claimed the power of judicial
review.5
4. U.S. CONST. art. Vl: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ......
5. See infra chapter 3, discussing Marbury v. Madison. The pedigree
of the Constitution itself contains a significant blemish, for it took
effect upon the approval of conventions in nine states despite an express
provision of existing law that the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation
could be altered only with the consent of the legislatures of all
thirteen. Compare U.S. CONST. art. VII with Articles of Confederation,
art. 13, Act of July 9, 177&, 1 Stat. 4, S-9. The interesting question why
one should treat as law an act arguably illegal in its inception is
fortunately beyond the scope of the present inquiry. One rather formalistic
response is that judges and other officials have sworn to do so, U.S.
CONST. art. Vl. Functional claims of repose and stability are also as
relevant here as in the case of erroneous judicial precedents.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Constitution in the Supreme Court, The Frist
Hundred Years, 1789-1888, David P. Currie, University of Chicago Press.
(1985) p. xii)
**************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
mind and that was clear to Washington, who realized that if anything
effectual were to be done, it would have to break the terms of the
Articles.1 Among the many reasons Washington had for resisting the project,
this was the greatest-it would involve its participants in the breaking of
their oaths of allegiance to the Articles. That was-in one plausible
interpretation of what they were up to treason. We call the meeting in
Philadelphia, retrospectively, the Constitutional Convention, since it
produced a new constitution. Its participants could not have called it
that, since they could not admit they were up to any such nefarious
business. While the meeting was being held, "the constitution" was still
the word regularly used for the Articles. What they were holding was really
an anticonstitutional convention.
If other delegates, less clearheaded than Washington, showed up at
Philadelphia in 1787 unaware of the meeting's subversive nature, they had a
rude awakening when Edmund Randolph presented the "Virginia Plan" for
consideration. This was based on a draft by Madison, and it recommended
abrogation of the Articles, not amendment of them. For a start, it proposed
that a new constitution must be ratified by special conventions, not by
state legislatures (the only means allowed under the Articles). Even more
stunning, the federal government would be empowered to veto laws passed by
state legislatures, a denial of the state sovereignty expressly reserved in
the Articles (10.16-17). The pretense that this was a plan to "correct" the
Articles was transparently false. The convention had to go into secret
session, and remain there for its whole time of meeting. It even had to
move to the second floor of the State House, so no one could overhear what
they were doing. (The delightful musical 1776 errs when it has the tense
debates take place in the downstairs legislative chamber, with the windows
wide open.) If the state legislatures that had sent these delegates found
out what was going on, they would have recalled them for breaking their
instructions.
Against a drumbeat of criticism directed at "the dark conclave,"
Washington himself, as presiding officer, strictly monitored the secrecy
provision until the final document was released, and the delegates scuttled
nervously away from the scene of the crime. Critics of the document were
probably right when they said that the members of the convention would have
been denounced for treason had not "great names" given them
cover-Franklin's name and, especially, Washington's. It would take great
temerity to call them enemies of their country. One of Madison's greatest
services to America was his help in ensuring Washington's attendance at the
convention. He negotiated the matter with great delicacy. When Washington
turned down a first request that he attend, Madison cooperated with Edmund
Randolph (then the governor of Virginia) to appoint the general as leader
of the Virginia delegation. He urged Washington, even if he did not plan to
accept the offer, not to reject it immediately, in case some emergency
should arise that would make him reconsider (9.224). Madison knew that if
Washington's name were standing as the presumed head of delegation, that
might convince other states that this was a serious endeavor. If this ploy
did not work, the convention would be called off, and Washington would not
have committed himself to a failure. If, on the other hand, other states
came aboard (and Madison was working in Congress to bring that about), this
fact could be reported to Washington as a spur for his attendance (9.31 S).
SOURCE: James Madison Garry Wills Times Books, (2002) pp. 25-26
****************************************
REBUPLICS ANCIENT AND MODERN - INVENTIONS OF PRUDENCE:
CONSTITUTING THE AMERICAN REGIME, Paul A. Rahe, Chapel Hill, 1994,
page 130:
"Indeed, in 1787, Madison demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for
revolutionary action. For, in effect, he helped stage a second
American revolution when he masterminded the effort to persuade the
federal convention to ignore its commission, to jettison the Articles
of Confederation, and to propose an entirely new system of
government--which would be ratified not in accord with established
legal procedures for amendment spelled out in the articles but by the
people of the United States acting outside the bounds of law through
specially elected conventions."
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states |
18 Jul 2005 12:53:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote:
:|Like I said, I haven't made any claims that the 14th Amendment is good
:|or bad, or that selective incorporation, full incorporation, or no
:|incorporation is right and proper but that it's ratification was not
:|done properly.
Guess what?
You're trying to change the topic through misdirection?
I'll still play.
Law says wise and guess what carries thwe day, your opinion or law?
Hint, not your opinion.
Read back up, I haven't made any opinions about the 14th, everything
I've posted is verifiable.
If anything I posted isn't a fact, please point it out to me so I can
correct my knowledge.
And you snipped this part from my post: "...as best I recall, this issue
was brought before the Supreme Court and their ruling was that the
improper ratification was a non-issue since the 14th had been part of US
legal jurisprudence for so long."
I might be misremembering that though, that could of been the 17th the
USSC ruled on. Either way, same thought process would apply.
But here, you can get upset about this too:
And why do you assume I'm upset?
Would you claim that the US is a illegal nation?
What is your point? Of course rebellion against the King was "illegal".
For AoC see below.
If you want to be technical, it is illegal,
I, Magus <nope@noway.net>, have never stated otherwise.
(1) The men in Philly ignored their mandate and illegally created a new
nation.
Yep, they ignored their mandate to fix the Articles of Confederation. I
don't know if there were any laws that said they could do this or not,
so I don't know if it was actually illegal--it was technically treasonous.
I see a parallel between what they did and what modern politicians do daily.
The States didn't have to ratify the new constitution, what they did was
"illegal".
(2) To change the Articles of Confederation required the yea of all 13
members. The Constitution only required 9 for ratify. The fact is the
Constitution was ratified and put into effect, thus replacing the AOC with
only 11 yea votes originally. Two stated refused to join the new nation
under the Constitution originally.
Yep, no doubt on this one, the existing States illegally seceded from
their existing "perpetual Union" and joined/created a new Union having
the same name. Right in-line with the creed of the Declaration of
Independence (which isn't Law).
The Articles of Confederation weren't actually altered--they were
basically just discarded (which also wasn't technically legal).
Seems to be a common law precedent for the southern States seceding, but
that would be a whole different topic.
Thus if you want to get really super technical, the US was not created via
the legal methods outlined by existing law of the day and instructions
given. .
Granted.
No one is going to prevail trying to claim the US is illegal lacking the
force of law as no one is going to prevail claiming that selective
incorporation via the 14th amendment is illegal and lacking the force of
law.
Haven't made any such claims concerning the USA.
Also haven't made any such claims re the 14th and "selective incorporation".
I do "claim" the 14th was not ratified IAW the procedure outlined in the
Constitution--I haven't made any claims that the 14th currently has no
"force of law" due to it's illegal ratification either. It's been part
of the US legal jurisprudence for over 100 years now.
Everything below didn't come from the post you replied to and has very
little bearing on the information you're responding to.
**********************************************************************************
gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
:|you point is taken - however this is a grey scale. and your example,
:|while not irrelivant - does not have as much of a stench of illegality
:|as the improper ratification of the 14th does.
:|
In your opinion which I don't agree with.
I will offer you this:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/4e702a40be6279ed?hl=en&
Oct 19 2004, 6:39 am
Newsgroups: alt.education, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.usa.republican, misc.education
From: -
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:39:53 -0400
Local: Tues,Oct 19 2004 6:39 am
Subject: Re: Public education via the *Ordinances* (was Re: DUBYA DOES IT
AGAIN)
bondr...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
:|>Based on your ideology all of the following would be unconstitutional:
:|>
:|>(1) The United States since it was created illegally. The men who framed
:|>the U S Constitution were committing treason and acting without
:|>authority. They staged a bloodless revolution.
:|
:|Oh my. "snip" more fallacies of distraction, attempts to "bury the opposition"
:|in irrelevent diatribe, some previously addressed in other threads.
Actually you snipped that which jams it in your ear, which is par for the
course
Remember this, this is what you snipped and called irrelevant:
Remember the topic? You are claiming something to be unconstitutional,
having no authority. Well, without addressing that claim of yours here, I
did provide something that was illegal thus should have been
unconstitutional, having no authority, yet how many people today are
running around saying the U S of A doesn't exist, has no authority is
unconstitutional?
Not many if any.
but the following is far from being irrelevant:
----------------------------------
I begin with the conviction that the Constitution is a law binding the
judges no less than the other officials whose actions the courts undertake
to review. That is what the Constitution itself says,4 and the Constitution
is the source from which federal courts derive their powers. It is also the
express basis on which the Supreme Court has claimed the power of judicial
review.5
4. U.S. CONST. art. Vl: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ......
5. See infra chapter 3, discussing Marbury v. Madison. The pedigree
of the Constitution itself contains a significant blemish, for it took
effect upon the approval of conventions in nine states despite an express
provision of existing law that the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation
could be altered only with the consent of the legislatures of all
thirteen. Compare U.S. CONST. art. VII with Articles of Confederation,
art. 13, Act of July 9, 177&, 1 Stat. 4, S-9. The interesting question why
one should treat as law an act arguably illegal in its inception is
fortunately beyond the scope of the present inquiry. One rather formalistic
response is that judges and other officials have sworn to do so, U.S.
CONST. art. Vl. Functional claims of repose and stability are also as
relevant here as in the case of erroneous judicial precedents.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Constitution in the Supreme Court, The Frist
Hundred Years, 1789-1888, David P. Currie, University of Chicago Press.
(1985) p. xii)
**************************************************
Madison left Annapolis an ardent convert to the idea of a
convention. He stopped off at Mount Vernon to recruit Washington to the
proposal-it was the beginning of along wooing process that would finally
break down Washington's reluctance to leave Mount Vernon. Madison had
completed his three years of rotation out from the Continental Congress,
and he returned to it now with a determination to head off any objections
to the convention. Congress authorized the meeting, but only for proposing
amendments to the Articles (which, remember, required ratification by all
the states in the confederation). By now, Madison had larger purposes in
m | | | | | | | | |
