| 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: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 09:57:23 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 12:09:12 PM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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.
Is it your claim that the Bill of Rights should NOT extend to the states?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 09:00:27 PM |
|
|
Jeff Welch wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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.
Is it your claim that the Bill of Rights should NOT extend to the states?
No, Bingham said only that Congress could only enforce "all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as
gurantied by the amended Constitution [new 14th] and expressly
enumerated in the Constitution."
It is declarations like this from Bingham that removes all doubt that
fourteenth does not incorporate entire BOR's nor was that its intention
as evidenced by the actual text of the law. If a P&I is not "expressly
enumerated" then the 14th has nothing to do with it, say for example,
"privacy." You have to look towards the states themselves for expanded
protections.
As Paul Madison once said: "When a scholar today uses the phrase
incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he or she is expressing their
fullest ignorance of both the text and the legislative history behind
the fourteenth amendment."
Paul Madison is one of the rare few who has studied and handled John
Bingham's personal memorandum for the years during and after the
adaption of his fourteenth amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
13 Jul 2005 12:43:58 PM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|As Paul Madison once said: "When a scholar today uses the phrase
:|incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he or she is expressing their
:|fullest ignorance of both the text and the legislative history behind
:|the fourteenth amendment."
:|
:|Paul Madison is one of the rare few who has studied and handled John
:|Bingham's personal memorandum for the years during and after the
:|adaption of his fourteenth amendment.
Where might one locate this book by Paul Madison?
I didn't find any Paul Madison when doing a books by Paul Madison Google
search
*****************************************************************************************
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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
13 Jul 2005 02:42:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:43:58 -0500, wrote
(in article <2mkad1t865tv242t8qa851jht1pvuitaj4@4ax.com>):
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
As Paul Madison once said: "When a scholar today uses the phrase
incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he or she is expressing their
fullest ignorance of both the text and the legislative history behind
the fourteenth amendment."
Paul Madison is one of the rare few who has studied and handled John
Bingham's personal memorandum for the years during and after the
adaption of his fourteenth amendment.
Where might one locate this book by Paul Madison?
Remember P.A. Madison from a few weeks ago?
This may well, also, be "Paul Madison."
I did a search on where or when he was a "Research Fellow" and could find
nothing.
Everything I could find on the Internet just said, "Former Research Fellow in
Constitutional Studies".
However, if you want a glimpse into this wacko - be he the correct wacko or
not the correct wacko, read the conclusion from his article found at the
below URL:
---------------------------------------
<http://idexer.com/articles/citizenship.htm>
What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not
grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within
American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the childıs
birth parents at the time of birth that determines the childıs
citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have
complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a childıs parents to Jury
Dutythen the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by
the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States
by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons
are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making
both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and
government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold
the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is
another very disturbing matter.
---------------------------------------
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Listening to American Family Radio
in the 2000's is like listening to
Radio Moscow in the 1950's.
I didn't find any Paul Madison when doing a books by Paul Madison Google
search
******************************************************************************
***********
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: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 09:51:49 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jul 2005 19:00:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121133627.799614.271640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
No, Bingham said only that Congress could only enforce "all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as
gurantied by the amended Constitution [new 14th] and expressly
enumerated in the Constitution."
It is declarations like this from Bingham that removes all doubt that
fourteenth does not incorporate entire BOR's nor was that its intention
as evidenced by the actual text of the law. If a P&I is not "expressly
enumerated" then the 14th has nothing to do with it, say for example,
"privacy." You have to look towards the states themselves for expanded
protections.
As Paul Madison once said: "When a scholar today uses the phrase
incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he or she is expressing their
fullest ignorance of both the text and the legislative history behind
the fourteenth amendment."
Paul Madison is one of the rare few who has studied and handled John
Bingham's personal memorandum for the years during and after the
adaption of his fourteenth amendment.
So what extra powers do you think that the states should have? What
other ways do you think that can and, perhaps, should interfere in our
lives?
--
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: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 08:33:19 PM |
|
|
The Bandit wrote:
Jeff Welch wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
But I can't say I blame you loons for not wanting to discuss the
limitations i mposed 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 reall y is: quakery.
Is it your claim that the Bill of Rights should NOT extend to the states?
No, Bingham said only that Congress could only enforce "all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as
gurantied by the amend ed Constitution [new 14th] and expressly
enumerated in the Constitution."
It is declarations like this from Bingham that removes all doubt that
fourteenth does not incorporate entire BOR's nor was that its intention
as evidenced by the actual t ext of the law. If a P&I is not "expressly
enumerated" then the 14th has nothing to do with it, say for example,
"privacy." You have to look towards the states themselves for expanded
protections.
As Paul Madison once said: "When a scholar toda y uses the phrase
incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he or she is expressing their
fullest ignorance of both the text and the legislative history behind
the fourteenth amendment."
Paul Madison is one of the rare few who has studied and handled John
Bingham's personal memorandum for the years during and after the
adaption of his fourteenth amendment.
It isn't the author of an amendment who makes it law. So why
should his "intent" override the intentions of those who did make
it law?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 10:51:41 AM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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.
Didn't know the Quakers were still so mainstream.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
12 Jul 2005 05:02:01 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1121093842.968570.99880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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 imp osed 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.
Didn't know the Quakers were still so mainstream.
Hahahahahaha! r
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 12:14:13 PM |
|
|
"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 author of
:|the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|application.
:|
BTW
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: "No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law...."
During the congressional discussion 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)
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. Rep, John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by
Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated that
the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which
the Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to
the states.(19)
FOOTNOTES:
(18) Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session. pp 2765
(19) Ibid., pp 1088-90. See also Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress,
1st Session, Appendix, p. 150, where Bingham restated his intention in
drafting the 14th Amendment.
Source of Information:
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context, By
John M. Swomley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo N Y (1987) pp 61, 72.)
*************************************************************
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? |
11 Jul 2005 12:10:04 PM |
|
|
"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 author of
:|the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|application.
Too bad you can't read.
The article cited above is a indepth extensive examination, pro and con,
of the topic.
In addtion there is an extensive list of cited material that the real
scholar or studnet can look for and look up such as ( I might add I have
the congressional debatres here as well as some of the books and the
journal articles)
Pro and Con Articles
[I am sure this is not all the articles that might be out there, but I
suspect that this list gives a good view of both sides of the issue.]
* The Congressional Globe, op. cit., 30th Cong., p. 2765, italics
supplied.
* B. Kendrick, The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on
Reconstruction 46 (1914). Hereafter cited Journal of the Joint Committee.
* Journal of the Joint Committee at 51.
Id. at 50.
Id. at 53.
Id. at 52-53.
Id. at 56-57.
Id. at 57.
Id. at 58.
* Journal of the Joint Committee at 61.
* Journal of the Joint Committee at 83. For a study of voting patterns
in the committee.
* Journal of the Joint Committee at 83.
Id. at 295-303. Owen was the most prominent advocate of civil rights
for blacks and women at the Indiana constitutional convention of 1850.
Supporting the right of "carrying of weapons," he added: "For if it were
declared by Constitutional provision that the people should have the right
to bear arms, no law of the Legislature could take away that right." Report
of the Debates and Proceedings of the Convention of the Revision of the
Constitution of the State of Indiana 1385 (1850). In a U.S.
Senate-commissioned report, Owen had written: "The most prized of personal
rights is the right of self-defense." R. Owen, The Wrong of Slavery 111-12
(1864).
* Journal of the Joint Committee at 85.
Id. at 87.
Id. at 88.
Id. at 106.
Id. at 106, 110.
Id. at 114-15.
* Journal of the Joint Committee, pt. 2, at 271-72.
Id. at 272.
*
* Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 39th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1866), reprinted as Sen.Doc. No. 711, 63d Cong., 3d Sess. (1915) 6.
* Journal, 9.
* On January 24, 1866, the subcommittee reported back a combination of
these two proposals which was not accepted by the full Committee. Journal,
13, 14.
* Journal, 14.
* Journal, 17.
* Journal 28.
* Journal 30.
* Journal 44.
* Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (1914) 217.
* Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (1914) 265.
* Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H.R.Rep.No.30, 39th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1866)
*
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., Ist Sess, (Washington, I).C.:
Blair and Rives, 150-5; 157-60
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 320 (Jan. 19, 1866),
at 331.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 566 (Feb. 1, 1866).
Id. at 573.
Id. at 574-75.
Id. at 585.
Id. at 586.
Id. at 595 (Feb. 2, 1866).
Id., App., at 69 (Feb. 3, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 806, 813 (Feb. 13,
1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 914 (Feb. 19, 1866).
Id. at 914-15.
Id. at 478 (Jan. 29, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe 1033-34 (Feb. 26, 1866).
Id. at 1064 (Feb. 27, 1866).
Id. at 1088 (Feb. 28, 1866). And see further comments of Bingham at
1089 ("the existing Amendments") and 1094 ("the law in its highest sense").
Id. at 1088.-90
Id. at 1072 (Feb. 28, 1866).
Id. at 1077.
Id. at 1117 (Mar. 1, 1866).
Id. at 1118.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1118-19 (Mar. 1,
1866).
Id. at 1121.
Id. at 1122.
Id. at 1168 (Mar. 3, 1866).
Id. at 1182 (Mar. 5, 1866). Pomeroy made several more interesting
comments. For example, he referred to "the rights of an individual under
the common law when his life is attacked. If I am assaulted by a
highwayman, by a man armed and determined, my first duty is to resist him,
and if necessary, use my arms also." Id. at 1183.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1238 (Mar. 7, 1866).
Id. at 3412 (June 26, 1866).
Id. at 1263 (Mar. 8, 1866).
Id. at 1266 (Mar. 8, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1270 (Mar. 8, 1866).
Id., App., at 157 (Mar. 8, 1866).
Id. at 1291 (Mar. 9, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1291 (Mar. 9, 1866).
Id. at 1292.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1621 (Mar. 24, 1866).
Id. at 1622.
Id. at 1629.
Id. at 606 (Feb. 2, 1866) (Senate); 1367 (Mar. 13, 1866) (House).
Id. at 1679 (Mar. 27, 1866). . at 1757 (Apr. 4, 1866).
Id. at 1809 (Apr. 6, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1833 (Apr. 7, 1866).
See also id. (remarks of Representative Lawrence) (arguing that one cannot
enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and property without "the benefit of
laws for the security of person and property.")
Id. at 1834.
Id. at 1838.
Id. at 1861 (Apr. 9, 1866).
Id. At 1866
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2286 (Apr. 30, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2459 (May 8, 1866) at
2465 (May 8, 1866).
Id. at 2542.
Id. at 2542-43.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2545 (May 10, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2743 (May 22, 1866).
Id. at 3412 (June 26, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2765 (May 23, 1866).
Id. at 2766.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2766 (May 23, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2773 (May 23, 1866).
Id. at 3412 (June 26, 1866).
Id. at 2773 (May 23, 1866).
Id. at 2774.
Id. at 2775.
Id. at 2878.
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (May 30, 1866).
Id. at 2897.
Id. at 2961 (June 5, 1866).
Id. at 3032 (June 8, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 3041 (June 8, 1866).
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 40 (Dec. 13, 1865).
Id. at 3042 (June 8, 1866).
Id. at 3149 (June 13, 1866).
*
* The Congressional Globe, 42nd Cong.. 1st Ses., 1871. Appendix, p.
150). In 1871, during a debate on the now ratified amendment Bingham
observed that in 1865-66 he had closely "re-examined" Marshall's decision
in Barron, wherein the chief Justice had stated that "had the framers of
these Amendments (One through Eight intended them to be limitations on the
power of state governments. they would have imitated the framers of the
Original Constitution and have expressed their intention." Bingham then
significantly added, "acting upon this suggestion I did imitate the framers
of the Original Constitution" where Bingham restated his intention in
drafting the 14th Amendment.
* The Congressional Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., at App. 231.
*
* Ex. Doc. No. 118, House of Representatives, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 7
(1866).
Id. at 20.
* Ex. Doc. No. 43, U.S. Senate, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 8 (1866).
* Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1865) 23, 24, 26, 36.
* "The Freedmen's Bureau Bill," id. at 2, col. 1.
* Report of Commissioner of Freedman's Bureau, Exec. Doc No. 70, 39th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1866) 41, 47, 48, 233, 236, 265, 376.
* Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17 (1857). Johnson's oral
argument in Dred Scott has not been preserved. See 3 Landmark Briefs And
Arguments of The Supreme Court of The United States (1978).
* 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 250-51.
*
* 14 Stat. 27.
* Act of July 16, 1866, 14 Statutes at Large 173, 176.
* -
* "The Civil Rights Bill in the Senate," New York Evening Post, Apr. 7,
1866, at 2, col. 1. The page facing the editorial supporting enforcement of
First and Second Amendment rights against the states included a prominent
advertisement for Remington rifles, muskets, "pocket and belt revolvers,"
and other arms, with the admonition: "In these days of housebreaking and
robbery every house, store, bank and office should have one of Remington's
revolvers." Id. at 3, col. 10. The New York police were seen as being
"employed in the service of the wealthy and prosperous corporations" while
crime was rampant. Id.,
* Apr. 16, 1866, at 2, col. 2,
* May 10, 1866, at 2, col. 4.
* New York Evening Post, May 11, 1866, at 2, col. 1.
Id., Apr. 7, 1866, at 2, col. 1.
* New York Times, May 24, 1866, at 1, col. 6.
* New York Herald, May 24, 1866, at 1, col 3.
* National Intelligencer, May 24, 1866, at 3, col. 2.
* Philadelphia Inquirer, May 24, 1866, at 8, col. 2.
* New York Times, May 25, 1866, at 2, col. 4.
* Chicago Tribune, May 29, 1866, at 2, col. 3.
* Baltimore Gazette, May 24, 1866, at 4, col. 2.
* Boston Daily Advertiser, May 24, 1866, at 1, col. 6;
* Boston Daily Journal, May 24, 1866, at 4, col. 4;
* Springfield Daily Republican, May 24, 1866, at 3, col. 1. The
Southern Democratic newspapers generally did not publish any speeches by
Republicans, but their reactions to the Howard Amendment are insightful.
The amendment's supporters, complained the Daily Richmond Examiner, "are
first to make citizens and voters of the negroes." Yet the Examiner praised
Senator Howard for objecting to the clause that disenfranchised
ex-Confederates. The Southern newspapers never claimed that the amendment
was unclear, but they objected to its breadth in guaranteeing to blacks the
rights guaranteed in the first eight amendments as well as the right to
vote.
* Daily Richmond Examiner, May 25, 1866, at 2, col. 3; id.
* May 26, 1866, at 1, col. 6; Charleston Daily Courier,
* May 28, 1866, at 1, col. 2, and at 4, col. 2; id.,
* May 29, 1866, at 1, cols. 1-2 (comment on Howard's speech).
* New York Evening Post, May 30, 1866, at 2, Col. 3.
*
* ALSO FROM THE APPENDIX AND FOOTNOTES FROM
* ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/332/46.html
*
* The Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1865) 6, 30.
* On January 24, 1866, the subcommittee reported back a combination of
these two proposals which was not accepted by the full Committee. Journal,
13, 14.
* Journal, 14.
* Journal, 17,
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 813.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1033, 1034.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1054, 1057, 1063-1065, 1083,
1085-1087. See also id. at 1082. Id. at 1059, 1066, 1088.
Id. at 1089-1091.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, at 1064.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1064, 1065.
* April 2, 1866. The Congressional Globe, supra, 1095.
* February 19, 1866,
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 915.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1266, 1267.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1154, 1155, 1263.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1291, 1292.
* The Congressional Globe, supra at 1294.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 1809, 1861.
* The Congressional Globe, 2459.2
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 2764.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 2542, 2543.
* The Congressional Globe, 2511, 2896.
* The Congressional Globe, 2461, 2502, 2506, 2513, 2961, 2513.
* The Congressional Globe, 2459, 2462, 2465, 2467, 2498, 2502.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 2500.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 2530, 2538.
* The Congressional Globe, supra 2869
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 2896.
* Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H.R.Rep.No.30, 39th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1866)
* Sen.Rep.No. 112, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866)
* The Congressional Globe, supra, 3038, 3051.
* Report, Part III, p. 25.3
* Flack, supra at 142
* The Congressional Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. (App. 1871) 150.
* The Congressional Globe, supra, at 152, 153.
* The Congressional Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. Part I (1871) 475, 476.
*
Congressional Globe. 39th Cong., 1st Sess, (Washington, I).C.: Blair and
Rives, 1866.
The Globe, 42nd Cong. 1st Ses., 1871. Appendix, p. 150).
Court Cases
* Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947.)
Journal Articles
* The New "Liberty" under the 14th Amendment, Charles Warren, Harvard
Law Review, (1926)
* Does the 14th Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights, The Original
Understanding. Charles Fairman, 2 Stanford Law Review, 5 (1949)
* Does the 14th Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights, Stanley
Morrison, 2 Stanford Law Review, 140 (1949)
* Equal Protection of the Law, J P Frank & R F Munto. 50 Columbia Law
Review, 141, 150 (1950)
* The Early Antislavery Backgrounds of the Fourteenth Amendment, H.J.
Graham. Wisconsin Law Review 479 (1950)
* Our "Declaratory" Fourteenth Amendment, H.J. Graham 7 Stanford Law
Review 3 (1954)
* Charles Fairman, Legislative History and the Constitutional
Limitations on State Authority, William Crosskey, University of Chicago Law
Review, (1954)
* Religious Disestablishment & the 14th Amendment, Joseph Snee,
University of Washington Law Quarterly, (1954)
* "John Marshall Harlan: the Justice and the Man," Henry J. Abraham, 46
Kentucky Law Journal 448 (Spring 1958), esp. pp. 469-70.
* The American Constitution, C. Pritchett, 376-82 (1959);
* "Selective Incorporation in the Fourteenth Amendment," Louis Henkin,
73 Yale Law Journal 74 (1963);
* "Constitutional Law-Was It Intended That the Fourteenth Amendment
Incorporates the Bill of Rights?" Frank H. Walker Jr., 42 North Carolina
Law Review, 925 (1964):
* Memorandum on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Due
process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 78 Harvard Law Review 746
1965).
* The Fourteenth Amendment, the "Right" to Vote, and the Understanding
of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, Van Alstyne, 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 33;
* The Bill of Rights, I. Brant, 302-59 (1967);
* Incorporation of the Bill of Rights: The Crosskey-Fairman Debates
Revisited, Avins, 6 Harvard Juris Legis. 1 (1968);
* Searching for the Intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Kaczorowski, 5 Connecticut Law Review. 368 (1972);
* "The Bill of Rights as a Limitation on State Authority: A Reply to
Professor Berger." Michael Kent Curtis, 16 Wake Forest Law Review 1 (1980);
* Our Perfect Constitution, H. Monagham. 56 New York U Law Review 375 n
130 (1981)
* Berger, Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth
Amendment: A Nine Lived Cat, 42 Ohio State Law Journal. 435 (1981 another
source lists it as 1982)
* "Further Adventures of the Nine lived Cat: A Response to Mr. Berger
on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights," Michael Kent Curtis, 43 Ohio State
Law Journal 89 (1982);
* The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, Michael Kent Curtis,
14 Connecticut Law Review. 237 (1982);
* "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights: A Reply to Michael Curtis"; 44
Ohio State Law Journal (1983);
* "Still Further Adventures of the Nine Lived Cat: A Rebuttal to Raoul
Berger's Reply on Application of the Bill of Rights to the States," Michael
Kent Curtis, 62 North Carolina Law Review 3 (1984).
* The Ideological Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, D A Farber, J E
Muench, 1 Constitutional Commentary 235-253 (1984)
* Revolutionary Constitutionalism in the Era of the Civil War and
Reconstruction, R J Kaczorowski, 61 New York U Review 863, 888 (1986)
* The Original Understanding of Original Intent? C. A. Lofgren. 5
Constitutional Commentary, 77, 84 (1988)
* Fourteenth Amendment Concepts in the Antebellum Era. E. M. Maltz 32
The American Journal of Legal History, 305, 335. (1988)
* The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 The Yale Law
Journal 1193 (1992)
* "The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered." Steven K. Green. The American
Journal of Legal History 36. (January 1992: 38-69.)
* Congressional Misunderstandings and the Ratifiers' Understanding: The
Case of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lambert Gingras. The American Journal of
Legal History Volume XL, 41 (Jan 1996)
Books
* Blackstone, Commentaries 140-41 (St. Geo. Tucker ed. 1803).
Id. at 143-44.
* H. Flack, The Adoption of The Fourteenth Amendment 80 (1908).
* Kendrick, Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction (1914)
* Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 39th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1866), reprinted as Sen. Doc. No. 711, 63d Cong., 3d Sess. (1915)
* Aristotle, Athenian Constitution 43-47 (transl. H. Rackman, 1935).
* Aristotle, The Politics 68, 71, 79, 136, 142, 218 (transl. T. A.
Sinclair, 1962);
* I. Brant, The Bill of Rights 337 (1965).
* E. Maltz, Civil Rights, The Constitution, And Congress, 1863-1869, at
82-92 (1990).
* The Anti-slavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment Jacobus Ten
Brock (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951).
* American Constitutional Development, C. Swisher, 329-34 (1954);
* The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, In his
Polities and the Warren Court. Alexander M. Bickel (New York: Harper & Row,
1965), pp. 221-61. Bickel's conclusion is that the authors of the
Fourteenth Amendment ultimately chose language which would be capable of
growth. It follows that "the record of history properly understood, left
the way open to, in fact invited, a decision based on the moral and
material state of the Union in 1954, not 1877" (p. 261)
* The American Constitution, C. Pritchett, 376-82 (1959)
* The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. H. Flack (1908 Reprinted
1965)
* "The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights." Arthur H. North, S.J.
which is the third chapter of his book The Supreme Court: Judicial Process
and Judicial Politics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966).
* The Bill of Rights, I. Brant, 302-59 (1967)
* Everyman's Constitution, H.J. Graham 169 (1968)
* The American Constitution: Its Origin and Development, 4th ed. Alfred
H.. Kelly and Winfred A. Harrison, (New York: Norton, 1970), p. 463.
* Judgments: Essay on American Constitutional History, 77, L Levy.
(1972)
* A Covenant with Death, The Constitution, Law, and Equality in the
Civil War Era,51. P. S. Paludan (1975)
* Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, R. Berger (1977)
* The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, W. M.
Wiecek. 254-55 (1977)
* Democracy and Distrust: A Study of Judicial Review, (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 24.
* No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of
Rights, Michael Curtis. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986)
* Death Penalties: The Supreme Court's Obstacle Course, R. Berger.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, (1982), especially Chapter 2,
"Incorporation of the Bill of Rights."
* The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776 - 1791, By Robert Allen Rutland.
1983 revised edition
* Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking Cases and Materials,
Second Edition, Paul Brest, Sanford Levinson. Law School Casebook Series,
Little, Brown and Company, (1983) pp. 195, 209-211
* Equality Under the Constitution: Reclaiming the Fourteenth Amendment,
99 J A Baer (1983)
* The Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, J B James (1984)
* Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context,
By John M. Swomley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo N Y (1987) pp 61, 72.)
* The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial
Doctrine 117. W E Nelson (1988)
* Visions of Liberty, The Bill of Rights for all Americans, Ira Galsser
(1991)
* Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing, St. Paul, Minn. (1991) pp 832-33
* The Bill of Rights & the Politics of Interpretation, by Robert S Peck
(1992)
* The Evolving Constitution, How the Supreme Court Has Ruled on Issues
from Abortion to Zoning. By Jethro K. Lieberman, Random House (1992) pp
260, 670)
* Freedom & The Court, Sixth edition, Civil Rights & Liberties in the
United States. Henry J. Abraham, Barbara A. Perry. Oxford University Press,
(1994) pp 9-12, 32-42
* The Supreme Court at Work, Second edition, Joan Biskupic, Elder Witt,
Congressional Quarterly, (1997) pp 23-31
* Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Raoul Berger , Forrest McDonald, Liberty Fund, Incorporated
05/01/1997
* The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights by Raoul Berger, Univ
of Oklahoma Pr, (October 1999)
* Keeping the Faith, A Cultural History Of The U.S. Supreme Court, by
John E. Semonche. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham, MD. (1998
Paperback 2000) pp. 139 -141
* Any of the major Constitutional Law books used as textbooks in
various law schools.
* Any of the major Constitutional law books that are published on a
regular basis.
Books --Publication Dates Unavailable
* Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric
Foner
* Reconstruction and Reform, Joy Hakin,
* The Bill of Rights in a Modern State, Stone, Epstein and Sunstein
* The Supreme Court and the Second Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment
and the Nationalization of Civil Liberties, Richard C. Cortner [may be
"Cortiner"]
* The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary
Origins of American Liberties. Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski,
* The Framers & Fundamental Rights, by Licht
SOME URLS
* Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights, Jon
Roland
* 14TH Amendment
* Lecture 3 [14th Amendment]
* For more links, do a Google search for the words: 14th Amendment,
incorporation
*************************************************************
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: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
11 Jul 2005 08:41:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.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.
Too bad you can't read.
The article cited above is a indepth extensive examination, pro and con,
of the topic.
Well geez then, if they had really read and considered all the cited
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. Paul Madison has written that many
constitutional scholars over the years have delibertly obscured and
thrown confusion over the meaning of the fourteenth amendment in order
to make unconstitutional rulings more palatable and defendable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
13 Jul 2005 12:40:38 PM |
|
|
"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 author of
:|> >:|the fourteenth amendment in defining the language and its scope of
:|> >:|application.
:|>
:|>
:|> Too bad you can't read.
:|> The article cited above is a indepth extensive examination, pro and con,
:|> of the topic.
:|
:|Well geez then, if they had really read and considered all the cited
:|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 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: "No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law...."
During the congressional discussion 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)
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. Rep, John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by
Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated that
the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which
the Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to
the states.(19)
FOOTNOTES:
(18) Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session. pp 2765
(19) Ibid., pp 1088-90. See also Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress,
1st Session, Appendix, p. 150, where Bingham restated his intention in
drafting the 14th Amendment.
Source of Information:
Religious Liberty and the Secular State, The Constitutional Context, By
John M. Swomley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo N Y (1987) pp 61, 72.)
:|Paul Madison has written that many
:|constitutional scholars over the years have delibertly obscured and
:|thrown confusion over the meaning of the fourteenth amendment in order
:|to make unconstitutional rulings more palatable and defendable.
Oh, and who is Paul Madison, where might one find his writings, what are
his credentials. etc
*************************************************************
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: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
14 Jul 2005 03:37:58 AM |
|
|
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: "No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process of law...."
During the congressional discussion 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)
That is correct and Howard also ran off an entire list of the
enumerated personal rights defined in the Bill of Rights that would be
directly restrained by the fourteenth amdendment, and Establishment was
not on the list, because
U.S. citizens do not have the privilege of making national laws on
their own. It should also be noted that Howard echoed Madison in
pointing out while the govt. cannot abridge these rights by law,
neither are they forbidden from regulating these rights to protect
public morality.
Also note Howard presented the introduction of the fourteenth to the
senate unprepared and at the last minute because Sen. Fesseden of Maine
who sat on the committee that debated the 14th became ill at the last
minute.
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. Rep, John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by
Justice Hugo Black "the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment," stated that
the amendment was intended to overturn Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which
the Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to
the states.(19)
No that is misreading what Bingham had said over and over. When Bingham
spoke of the Bill of Rights, he always followed with qualifcation of
what Bill of Rights he was speaking of. To say the entire Bill of
Rights is applicable to the States is abolutely a ignorant exercise
and unsupported by the tinest evidence from Bingham. Never ever will
you ever find anywhere where Bingham or anyone else for that matter
refered to the Establishment Clause, but every other clause that
specifically refered to individules they did in fact spell out. That is
because no one would ever consider the Establishment Clause a personal
P&I, except for some dumbass KKK justice by the name of Hugo Black and
few liberal damaged Atheist goons today.
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
"I repel the suggestion made here in the heat of debate, that the
committee or any of its members who favor this proposition seek in any
form to mar the Constitution of the country, or take away from any
State the right that belongs to it, or from any citizen of any State
any right that belongs to him under that Constitution." Bingham, Feb.
28, 1866
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
14 Jul 2005 06:27:33 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jul 2005 01:37:58 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121330278.637527.145360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
No that is misreading what Bingham had said over and over. When Bingham
spoke of the Bill of Rights, he always followed with qualifcation of
what Bill of Rights he was speaking of. To say the entire Bill of
Rights is applicable to the States is abolutely a ignorant exercise
and unsupported by the tinest evidence from Bingham. Never ever will
you ever find anywhere where Bingham or anyone else for that matter
refered to the Establishment Clause, but every other clause that
specifically refered to individules they did in fact spell out. That is
because no one would ever consider the Establishment Clause a personal
P&I, except for some dumbass KKK justice by the name of Hugo Black and
few liberal damaged Atheist goons today.
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 07:28:56 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
:|is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
:|states? Anyone want to guess?
There have been several amendments that have never been incorporated
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: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
14 Jul 2005 07:11:55 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this enormous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
"What is the limitation [of the fourteenth amendment], sir? Simply
this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the
citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal
Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government. I
have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of
the country." Bingham
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the
Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in
view of the manifest and delcared intent of the men who framed it, the
enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and
property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State
of the Union, is of reserved powers of the States, to be enforced by
State tribunals and by State officals acting under the solemn
obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of the
United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of
the Constitution: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people?" The constitution does not
delegate to the United States the power to punish offenses against the
life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States, nor does it
prohibit the power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved power
of the States, to be by them exercised. The prohibitation of power by
the Constitution to the States are express prohibitations, as that no
State shall enter into any treaty, etc., or emit bills of credit, or
pass any bill of attainder, etc. The Constitution does not prohibit
States from the enactment of laws for the general governemnt of the
people within their respective limits." Bingham, March 9, 1866
"My dear sir, the adoption of this [fourteenth] amendment shall change
nothing pertaining to powers of States, it only oblige the States to
reconize the enumerated rights of all citizens as found in the Bill of
Rights." Bingham
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
14 Jul 2005 07:42:34 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jul 2005 05:11:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121343115.518271.191830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this enormous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
"Due process of law"
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
No, I will listen to the courts and the 150 years of legal discussion
since then.
"What is the limitation [of the fourteenth amendment], sir? Simply
this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the
citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal
Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government. I
have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of
the country." Bingham
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the
Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in
view of the manifest and delcared intent of the men who framed it, the
enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and
property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State
of the Union, is of reserved powers of the States, to be enforced by
State tribunals and by State officals acting under the solemn
obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of the
United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of
the Constitution: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people?" The constitution does not
delegate to the United States the power to punish offenses against the
life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States, nor does it
prohibit the power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved power
of the States, to be by them exercised. The prohibitation of power by
the Constitution to the States are express prohibitations, as that no
State shall enter into any treaty, etc., or emit bills of credit, or
pass any bill of attainder, etc. The Constitution does not prohibit
States from the enactment of laws for the general governemnt of the
people within their respective limits." Bingham, March 9, 1866
"My dear sir, the adoption of this [fourteenth] amendment shall change
nothing pertaining to powers of States, it only oblige the States to
reconize the enumerated rights of all citizens as found in the Bill of
Rights." Bingham
--
Matt Silberstein
Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Cliff on Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
14 Jul 2005 08:07:54 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 05:11:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121343115.518271.191830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this enormous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
"Due process of law"
How does that help you're case there? Bingham defined due process to
mean only procedural rules. Alexander Hamilton, addressing the New York
Assembly in 1787, stated that the "words 'due process' have a
precise technical meaning, and are only applicable to the process and
proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an
act of the legislature."
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
No, I will listen to the courts and the 150 years of legal discussion
since then.
That is strange, it wasn't till FDR packed the court with 8 hand picked
justices that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version of the
fourteenth amendment. I would think you would prefer to trust the man
who wrote it and the understanding of those who voted for it then a
court what had no prior juriprudence experience.
But I am glad to hear you will listen to the courts when they burst the
last 50 years of fictional rulings and actually rule on the text and
its defined meanings, something that has been solely lacking for a
while now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
17 Jul 2005 09:45:11 PM |
|
|
The Bandit wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 05:11:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121343115.518271.191830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this eno rmous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
"Due process of law"
How does that help you're case there? Bingha m defined due process to
mean only procedural rules. Alexander Hamilton, addressing the New York
Assembly in 1787, stated that the "words 'due process' have a
precise technical meaning, and are only applicable to the process and
proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an
act of the legislature."
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
No, I will listen to the courts and th e 150 years of legal discussion
since then.
That is strange, it wasn't till FDR packed the court with 8 hand picked
justices that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version of the
fourteenth amendment.
Your willingness to revise/reinterpret history does a number
on your credibility. The "Court Packing" plan was to add
one SC justice for every justice on the bench over age 70
(up to 6 more) and was rejected by congress.
..I
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: 14th amendment applies BOR to states? |
19 Jul 2005 09:43:51 PM |
|
|
Del wrote:
The Bandit wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 05:11:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121343115.518271.191830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this eno rmous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
"Due process of law"
How does that help you're case there? Bingha m defined due process to
mean only procedural rules. Alexander Hamilton, addressing the New York
Assembly in 1787, stated that the "words 'due process' have a
precise technical meaning, and are only applicable to the process and
proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an
act of the legislature."
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
No, I will listen to the courts and th e 150 years of legal discussion
since then.
That is strange, it wasn't till FDR packed the court with 8 hand picked
justices that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version of the
fourteenth amendment.
Your willingness to revise/reinterpret history does a number
on your credibility.
how so? - I find his argument valid. not that I agree with all of it.
The "Court Packing" plan was to add
one SC justice for every justice on the bench over age 70
(up to 6 more) and was rejected by congress.
.I
walks like quacks like....................it is.
--
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? |
20 Jul 2005 04:52:43 AM |
|
|
gaffo wrote:
Del wrote:
The Bandit wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 05:11:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Bandit"
<no-reply@idexer.com> in
<1121343115.518271.191830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrot e:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
The Establishment clause applies to the *states* via the 14th. There
is, however, one amendment that has not, IIANM, been applied to the
states? Anyone want to guess?
Well then, WHERE in the 14th language can we find this eno rmous power
to strike down a states power over religious establishments? Where in
the 14th language may we find the words "Bill of Rights" or
"Establishment"?
"Du e process of law"
How does that help you're case there? Bingha m defined due process to
mean only procedural rules. Alexander Hamilton, addressing the New York
Assembly in 1787, stated that the "words 'due process' have a
precise technical meaning, and are only applicable to the process and
proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an
act of the legislature."
The fourteenth cannot strike down any reserve state rights.
Amendments don't act. But the 14th certainly can be used to restrict
states powers. The most significant burden on the states from the 14th
is the requirement that they do due process.
Well, lets listen to the man who wrote the amendment and see what he
says about it:
No, I will listen to the courts and the 150 years of legal discussion
since then.
That is strange, it wasn't till FDR packed the court with 8 hand picked
justices that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version of the
fourteenth amendment.
Your willingness to revise/reinterpret history does a number
on your credibility.
how so?
"How so?" Revising history, falsifying history
actually, does a number on ones credibility because
people who know what the history actually was
can compare the revisionism with the reality and
see the difference and can deduce the reason for the
difference: personal bias and a willingness to
mislead people in the service of that bias. This
destroys credibility because anything the person
now says will be suspect, and fairly assumed to
also be the result of that bias.
- I find his argument valid.
Well let's look at it then:
"That is strange, it wasn't till FDR packed the court with 8 hand
picked
justices that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version of the
fourteenth amendment."
1. Your buddy flat out lied about FDR. His plan to
add up to 6 justices to the SC bench was rejected
by the democrat controlled congress. FDR even
made one of Calvin Coolidge's appointments--Harlan
Fisk Stone--Chief Justice.
2. Your buddy makes dishonest rhetorical statements
like " 8 hand picked justices" as if all presidential
appointments weren't "hand picked."
3. Your buddy employs the ad hominem logical fallacy:
"that a former Klansman made up his own twisted version
of the fourteenth amendment" as if a justice being a
former klansman invalidates his opinion on the 14th. In
fact your buddy's opinion of the 14th is closer to what a
real klansman would agree with.
4. The cited passage--and what I was commenting on--isn't
really an argument at all. It is a couple of assertions, plus
some insinuation that he doesn't offer a nickle's worth of
support for.
not that I agree with all of it.
The "Court Packing" plan was to add
one SC justice for every justice on the bench over age 70
(up to 6 more) and was rejected by congress.
.I
walks like quacks like....................it is.
Now this actually is an argument. A poor and
unconvincing argument, but an argument nonetheless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
