Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
IMO, they didn't 'beat around the bush'. - And it's fairly simple language, for its day. - Justice Black agrees, & makes a very understandable statement to that effect.

I would bet your problem with the 14th is what it says, -- more than how its said. - True?

7 posted on 05/22/2002 6:12:32 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
IMO, they didn't 'beat around the bush'

Actually, I agree, because I don't believe that the 14th amendment incorporates the BOR. It's only if one does believe that, that it would very much appear that they were beating around the bush. If the framers intended for that to be the case, they could have very easily said so.

I would bet your problem with the 14th is what it says, -- more than how its said. - True?

I'll admit, if I had my druthers, it wouldn't be a part of the Constitution. It's a rather prolific source of mischief for the federal judiciary. But my biggest problem isn't with the actual provisions of the amendment, but with the way it gets glaringly misapplied.

But in any case, I'd like to hear your (or Judge Black's) explanation of why its authors didn't feel the need to say what they meant, if they truly meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

8 posted on 05/22/2002 7:38:43 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson