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

To: Enterprise
It leaves no wiggle room for States, and subsequently Counties or Cities to decide otherwise.

Okay, so I looked up "Does Bill of Rights . . ." and auto-complete offered me "apply to the states". I'm not always a fan of Wikipedia, but this link seemed pretty user-friendly and also scholarly. It has a time-line of when parts of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated against" the States. The article says the Supreme Court in 1833 flatly held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to State governments, but to Congress.

A case in New York that was decided by the USSC in 1925, Gitlow v. New York, is said to be the first where the Court held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech because of an obligation to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Through the rest of the 20th century, more and more provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the States and localities, rather than the Federal government. Judging quickly from the names, it was mostly liberal judges supporting liberal causes, but that's not necessarily here or there.

Unless the article is completely upside-down on its facts, it would appear that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights in earlier times were defended within States and localities through the kind of "peer pressure" of other American localities. On the desired result, there's no dispute possible among real Americans. But it appears that the liberty enshrined in American civic and legal culture did not come about because of the incorporation doctrine. It seems to have preceded that doctrine by 150 years. Let me know what you think!

45 posted on 08/01/2014 10:00:37 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: SamuraiScot
I think that despite the amusing Supreme Court decision of 1833, the people who wrote the bill of rights intended from the beginning that their rights were to be held inviolable, regardless of Government Jurisdiction. These people had just come through a Revolutionary War, and they repudiated the right of a foreign King or Government to rule over them in violation of basic rights. Having fought to rid themselves of unjust rule by a King or Foreign Government, they wouldn't have allowed local tyrants or thugs to rule over them unjustly either! These rights were intended from the beginning to be the rights of the people, and it is unfortunate that any Judicial Body was ever confused about what the people intended.
46 posted on 08/01/2014 10:27:10 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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