Replies

I need to correct this statement just a tad. The Bill of Rights does not apply equally to the Feds and States, but almost equally. FYI, the genesis of this was Gitlow v. New York case in 1925 for anyone who's interested.

LOL!

Of course, andyk will argue that this was just an illustration of judicial activism. Then again, I doubt he's ever thought through what would happen if states could ignore the First Amendement whenever a majority decided to do so. Don't think that would happen in the US? Well, I don't want to find out. Seems to me there's a sect in Utah that would love to establish a state religion - but I digress.

Um, you posted this to me, but you're certainly not talking to me! I can't come to any other conclusion that you believe that prior to the 14th amendment, and the absurd "incorporation" that followed, the bill of rights applied to State governments as well (or should have). Of course, andyk is now 3rd person andyk. andyk likes it. andyk enjoys civil discussion. You believe that the Bill of Rights is incomplete without the 14th amendment's incorporation. You appear to have disdain for our system of federalism.

Let andyk further explain his position. You asked what I would think about a porn shop opening next to a school or church. I replied by saying there is nothing the federal government could do about it, that it would be a state issue. I said this because there is no power given to the federal government to prohibit such an activity, aside from some twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I suggested that it is a state matter. My answer solely relied on the restrictions put on it by the specific powers laid out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not the Bill of Rights. Your meandering point is moot.

I really am not trying to start a flame war. I apologize if my attitude came across that way. I am curious as to your thoughts on a couple of things.

1. I take it you disagree with the "incorporation" idea. So, am I safe in assuming you have no problem with a state or local government establishing a state religion, state run media, a state police that conducts searches and seizures without a warrant, etc. I'm truly interested in how you think this is workable.
2. If my assumption in #1 is correct, doesn't this really mean that all of our personal liberties are derived from the state?

I realize we've gotten far off the track of our original discussion, but I'm curious what you think about these things.