Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
The First Amendment applied only to the federal government, because it was a specific limitation on what Congress could do. The other amendments had no limitations in scope, and I believe would have applied to every citizen in the various states.
The clause "The Congress Shall Make No Law" in the First reads like it is a preface to every succeeding amendment in the BOR. But the "First" I believe was actually the third amendment offered to the states for ratification. It become the "First" amendment merely because it was ratified before the rest.
So when the Second gives the citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it is an absolute right of all citizens of the various states, and has been since it was ratified.
If there was any specific limitation on the BOR, other than the limitations in the First, please enlighten me how the framers documented it. Perhaps you can quote something from the Federalist Papers, or the debate in Congress offering the BOR for ratification.
"If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states, that is."
pausen replies:
Well then it was one of the better kept secrets, in that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Senate itself thought the 14th applied the BOR to the states.
Yes robby, -- the reconstruction eras politicians & judges did not want to admit that ex-slaves were entitled to life, liberty, or property; -- they even deprived them of due process.
Very few still hold to your belief that this was a correct interpretation of the 14th.
A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.
Of course not. The court did not want to enforce the 14th against the southern States that were ignoring it.
Eight years after the 14th was ratified, Congress was considering the "Blaine Amendment", a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government. Why would they do that if the 14th amendment already applied the First Amendment to the states?
Because they did not want Utah admitted as a secular State, and were preparing to pass an Amendment to that effect if necessary.
-- It wasn't. -- Rationality prevailed.
I am disgusted enough with what has been done to our rights since the founding of this country to recognize that in all reality we now have virtually no rights at all, enumerated or not!
We now have only those limited rights we can afford to defend in court, our own wallet against the Gov. Org.'s unlimited funds.
The continuing dismissal of our rights, enumerated or not, as being merely "policy", subject to denial or reinterpretation at Gov. whim, is beyond contempt!
"Judges" engaging in judicial activism and spouting personal ideology to support their treasonous attacks on our liberties may succeed in reducing our rights to nothing, but that does not make them right.
People idly talk about the fall of our republic, overbearing Gov. breaking faith with it's own basic tenets is the most likely source of that fall.
Denying that U.S. Citizens have a right to privacy is certainly a concrete step toward the totalitarianism that will eventually destroy this country.
This also explains why so many in Gov. are working so hard to reinterpret our RKBA in a manner to diminish and destroy it.
I am disgusted enough with what has been done to our rights since the founding of this country to recognize that in all reality we now have virtually no rights at all, enumerated or not!
We now have only those limited rights we can afford to defend in court, our own wallet against the Gov. Org.'s unlimited funds.
The continuing dismissal of our rights, enumerated or not, as being merely "policy", subject to denial or reinterpretation at Gov. whim, is beyond contempt!
"Judges" engaging in judicial activism and spouting personal ideology to support their treasonous attacks on our liberties may succeed in reducing our rights to nothing, but that does not make them right.
People idly talk about the fall of our republic, overbearing Gov. breaking faith with it's own basic tenets is the most likely source of that fall.
Denying that U.S. Citizens have a right to privacy is certainly a concrete step toward the totalitarianism that will eventually destroy this country.
This also explains why so many in Gov. are working so hard to reinterpret our RKBA in a manner to diminish and destroy it.
LOL. I'm sure they did. Congress does all kinds of unconstitutional things.
Flying an airplane locally around the pattern does affect interstate commerce. A transit aircraft from another state could easily midair with me while I'm violating the FARs flying in the clouds without a clearance. THAT affects interstate commerce.
What I do in the privacy of my house does not. Violating some other person's right in my house should put me under threat of legal sanction, but what I do to my body, in the privacy of my home should be nobody's business.
At least if the SC is to maintain consistency with Griswold and Roe, then that's the case.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I DO NOT use (illegal) drugs of any kind. I'm merely opining on the hypocrisy between the SC's rulings on contraception and abortion vs. their rulings on what I do can with my own body unrelated to sex (maybe if I mixed Viagra and ... nevermind).
You got it right away, imo. Funny how so many others are letting the author dictate the terms of the debate insofar as what clauses supposedly apply.
But oddly enough, you've been taking the position on this thread consistent with judicial activism. In finding that right to privacy listed nowhere in the Constitution, the judges were able to use it to say that states can't prohibit abortion.
There's nothing preventing them from a new constitutional right for you. Let's call it the constitutional right to safety.
They can then use that right to impose a duty on the state to do something in order to protect you. Pick your poison, mandatory identification requirements, travel restrictions, whatever they want.
THAT's what's dangerous about finding new constitutional rights for you. They're used in efforts to take away your other rights.
Now that's interesting. The Congress at the time noticed that the First was a specific limitation on what Congress could do, not a "Right" given to the people. And they recognized this 8 years after the 14th.
I mentioned in an earlier post that the "First" was actually passed out of the Congress as the third amendment. It was ratified first, and thus is listed at the top. This means that the words "Congress shall make no law", which appears to be a preface to the entire BOR, actually only applies to the First amendment alone.
Why did they use that language, unless the Congress was the only governmental body prevented from abridging religion, etc? Quite a bit of debate went into these amendments, so that language was deliberate.
My contention is that the First does not specifically enumerate rights of the people, but does exactly what it says it does, limit the laws Congress can pass. Interpreting it any other way, without explicitly amending that wording in a subsequent amendment, is not warranted.
Not that I want "freedom of the press" abridged, since the Congress is already trying to do that via campaign laws. It's just means they sould get busy and pass an amendment actually giving us freedom of the press, religion, speech etc. because I don't think we actually have those rights spelled out in the constitution.
Article VI clearly applies our supreme "Law of the Land" [as amended] to all States, "notwithstanding" any state laws "to the Contrary".
States still do ignore the Constitution, as you well know.
The 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, & 15th) to deal with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not citizens of any state and consequently had no state-protected rights or privileges.
So their ex-masters claimed. It's odd to see that this same theory is still used.
The 14th amendment made them "citizens of the United States", and extended some fundamental privileges and immunities to them.
Yep, just "some fundamentals" like life, liberty or property.. -- The rest of our rights did not apply to ex-slaves until the Court 'incorporated' them, -- is that what you're claiming paulsen?
-- Incredible stance..
Simply not true. Both Article VI & the 14th specifically address this issue, making clear that States are bound to support the US Constitution and the individuals rights protected therein.
In Chicago, you have a right to defend yourself, but not with a gun.
Good grief robby, read the 2nd.
I find the abortion arguments irrelevant distractions, the emotionalism they engender gets in the way of rational thought.
No "Judicial Activism" is needed to recognize our right to privacy merely because it is "unenumerated".
Under the Ninth Amendment all unenumerated rights are intended to be equal to the few enumerated rights.
Let me put it this way, We have the right to do any thing we please that is not specifically illegal!
This is a major difference between the American philosophy and most of the rest of the world.
In the regimes of Europe and the East people can only do what is expressly allowed.
It may even be THE major factor underlying the European, Eastern, and Islamo-facist hatred of us.
Their jealousy of our freedom is not a reason for us to surrender any of that freedom.
I will stand by our right to privacy, no matter what elegant or brutal argument is made against it, it is conceivable that I may die to defend it.
If your fear is that other unenumerated rights may become common, it would appear that you fear "too much liberty".
Clearly we are not going to settle this, I will continue to know that we DO have a right to privacy, without undo worry that our liberties are going to be further restricted in the name of "new rights".
It has been my observation that Gov. Org. already has plenty of pretext to diminish our existing rights without resorting to such arcane ruses.
Actually it is a right in the California Constitution (it's the real deal Jack):
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
The main point is that for every new right the Supreme Court finds you have in the Constitution, it is wresting power away from the states and away from you and bestowing it on themselves and the federal government.
That is the danger and I can't understand why you are unable to see it.
That's part of the problem of the abuse of the "commerce clause" that so many conservatives decry.
Mark
While I have no disagreement with your statement, may I suggest a slight change in the way you present it?
I disagree only with the way you make your argument: While the Constitution does place limits on the federal government, it does so by strictly enumerating powers given to the government BY the people. The Constitution is a set of rules that states what the federal government is allowed to do, and how to do it. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights IS a list of specific limitations as to what the government is allowed to do.
I realize that this is a subtle difference, and I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but by saying that the Constitution places limits on what the government can do, you're giving the mistaken allusion that the Constitution grants rights.
Mark
And that's where it belongs, in the state constitutions.
Thanks for the additional comments and information.
Thanks.
My sentiments as well...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.