Posted on 07/11/2006 4:03:24 PM PDT by tpaine
U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers
Following is the fifth in a series of columns by members of the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform.
By W.S. Dixon
Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments.
In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws."
This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states.
If the Supreme Court of the United States had not made this interpretation of the above clauses in the 14th Amendment, the states would have been free to restrict religious freedom and even establish a particular religion as the official state religion, to prohibit any desired variety of speech, to limit or prohibit the printing or disseminating of any information the state decided was not allowed, to prohibit or restrict meetings of any kind as the legislature desired, and to prohibit or restrict access to state public officials. Other restrictions on the states are specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 10. In addition, because of the powers assigned to the Congress, the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy.
Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above.
State constitutions are limited, in part as a result of these restrictions. States do, however, have the ability to regulate all other levels of government situated within their territory --
Fascinating perspective, however, this "grandfathering" provision is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or B.O.R. Instead the 1st Amendment clearly protects the people or states from a federal establishment of "religion," which is properly understood to mean a christian denomination. The founders were christians overwhelmingly, but not all the same denomination. Thus general christian observances shared by all denoms was "tolerated"--Bible reading/training, prayer, posting of 10 commandments, ... (I'm sure some will point out exceptions, but these are exceptions.) These didn't become "unconstitutional" until the 1950's and following. Curious.
I admit that I do not know much about the history of Utah statehood.
Weird. -- Whats to disagree about?
i disagree that the taxpayers have an obligation to educate everyone, obligation being the operative word.
That this has been so completely obfuscated by trial lawyers, and their sychophants, to mean that States can over-ride Federal Law (within the Feds power limits) or Constitutional protections for Rights is part and parcel why this country is no longer a Republic and our Rights almost completely gone.
And yes... my Rights ARE being infringed. There are things I cannot do with my property even if those things put no one else at risk. I cannot say certain things without being charged with "incitement ot riot" or a hate crime. I cannot arm myself and walk about free of fear that some government enforcer will try and disarm me because I failed to PROVE I am not a criminal first and pay their bribe money/licensing fee.
Anyone who mistakes themselves for free man in this country hasn't been paying attention.
Thus endeth the rant...
Nice catch. Well said.
No. Imho, if you discuss the 14th Amendment, there should be some historical context. Not being familiar with the "Series," I would assume (bad word) that the 9th & 10th Amendments have already been discussed, and that I missed it.
5.56mm
Granted, there's a lot of hype saying that all of those things are now "unconstitutional", but none of them really are, unless they actually deprive someone else of life, liberty, or property.
bump
So Art 6 Para 2 was just window dressing?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Sounds like Fed Law took precedence over State law right from the Start. The "further declaratory and restrictive" clauses were added later does not mean they also do not apply to the States under the Supremacy Clause. No matter what some judge decided to twist it to say.
Debates of the First congress are quit clear on the scope of the Constitution and the protections for those Rights.
"The Establishment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights."
"Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision--it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right."
"...Even assuming that the Establishment Clause precludes the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created or protects any individual right. ...Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a peculiar outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion. ...Nevertheless, the potential right against federal establishments is the only candidate for incorporation." - Justice Thomas, Elk Grove v Newdow
Read my comment.. I said the same thing.
To whit, our favorite whipping boy, gun control. Any and all gun bans are illegal. The "F" portion of the BATFE is entirely ILLEGAL. As are the California bans, NY bans, ect... While it could be argued that the Militia Clause could be used to "regulate" the wearing of arms, this cannot be used to contrue a denial of RKBA completely. As in Texas. You cannot carry pistols openly and CCW is strictly "regulated". This puts Texas at odds with the "shall not be infringed" and well outside any reasonable "regulation" of the militia. The "militia", you and I, were never to be "debarred the use of arms".
Best bet would be to get rid of all Federal gun laws and revamp all State laws on the Alaska model.
It's no 'rant'.
Too bad so few here at FR can agree. -- As you say, sharp lawyers have so 'completely obfuscated' these basic constitutional issues that everybody runs about arguing petty details, -- losing sight of principles.
The 14th Amendment does not equal freedom, tpaine. Your argument is uncoordinated.
"The 2nd doesn't really need 'incorporation' by the USSC.
None of the amendments did. -- They all apply as being an integral part of our supreme Law of the Land. -- According to:
Article VI, Clause 2"
Very good, tpaine. I have taught you something.
The supremacy clause makes "incorporation" doctrine superfluous at best. The judges in every state are bound by the Bill of Rights.
"none of the federal BOR could possible apply to the states until the 14th"
WT, what are the "federal BOR"? Laws in the Constitution belong to neither Federal nor State, but are superior to both.
"This is basic Constitution 101"
It's also Federalist 39, one of the best and most instructive about what this country is.
Yep, and our freedom was basically won at gunpoint, -- twice.
Why do we need to do anything about that?
H.Akston inanely wrote:
The 14th Amendment does not equal freedom, tpaine. Your argument is uncoordinated.
The 14th helps protect our freedoms, hugh.
"Uncoordinated"? What is that supposed to mean?
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.