Replies

"if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording "
Even a seemingly reasonable interpretation of the words of the Constitution, like yours or that of those who wish to expand the general welfare clause, run counter to the intent and understanding of it's authors and ratifiers at the time of it's adoption.

The Bill of Rights was demanded only as a limit on the Federal government:
"If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control.
And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. " Patrick Henry 1788

And that is what it was, a limit only on the federal government:

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them. " Supreme Court 1833 Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
(there is a link to a Libertarian 'Living Constitution' commentary at the bottom of the page which you might enjoy).

In some cases, the USC limits the federal govt, in others it empowers the individual. If we are to take your interpretation, the DOI was overwritten by the USC. Why do you suppose the first 10 amendments are referred to as "The Bill of Rights"? Were they speaking of state's rights or individual rights? Let's take the 4th and 5th amendments, for instance. The 4th mentions neither the state or federal govt. It does mention the "people". What good would this amendment be since, at the time of the constitution, 99.9% of criminal cases would have been tried in state courts? The same can be said of the 5th. In your interpretation, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" would mean that a state court could compel someone to give testimony against themselves. The constitution is clear and in keeping with the DOI. Rights belong to individuals, are God-given, and "inalienable".

Commentary by Jon Roland:

" --- we can see Barron as a decision like that of Dred Scott, intended to avoid a rupture among the states.

At the time the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights were being violated by state courts in the slave states, which is what laid the basis for the 14th Amendment following the Civil War.
We can see Barron as an attempt to evade a confrontation.

Barron was wrongly decided, and needs to be overturned.

Federal courts should not accept jurisdiction of state civil rights cases unless or until all recourse within the state courts has been exhausted, but it should accept jurisdiction over appropriate cases involving any of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights after that has occurred, and extend all of those protections to cases between a citizen and his state.

Especially important are the protections of the Second Amendment, the right to a grand jury of the Fifth, and the right not to have state officials or their agents exercise undelegated powers.

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Address:http://www.constitution.org/ussc/032-243jr.htm Changed:5:44 AM on Wednesday, December 31, 2003