U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/050410.shtml ^ | 7/10/06 | W.S. Dixon

[tpaine]

H.Akston:
The supremacy clause makes "incorporation" doctrine superfluous at best. The judges in every state are bound by the Bill of Rights.

FreeReign:
The First Amendment Specifically refers to Congress?
States were not bound by the Frist Amendment and the rest of the BOR until the 14th Amendment came along.

Hugh:
Yes the first amendment specifically refers to congress and does not bind the states. The 14th amendment still doesn't bind the states to the 1st Amendment - and if "incorporation doctrine" does, it's only because some federal judge has grossly misinterpreted the 14th Amendment.

You're both wrong in that only the establishment clause of the 1st specifically refers to Congress..
And, -- Article VI still binds the states to honor all the provisions of the 1st.

The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion".
----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.

[FreeReign]

The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion". ----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Before 14 A. states could.

I see the entire BOR a forbidden list for congress and not the states, at least until the 14th amendment came along.

[Dead Corpse]

I see the entire BOR a forbidden list for congress and not the states, at least until the 14th amendment came along.

Why does everyone ignore the following two clauses in the Constitution?

Art 4. Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And...

Art 6. Para 2 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.

The "forbidden" list is a list of Amendments RATIFIED, Ie passed into law and approved of, by the Congress and the States. Not just one of the other. The scope of each Amendment added to the Constitution takes effect at the Federal level, as it is by definition a Federal Constitution, and applies everywhere it stipulates it does. With the Second Amendment, "shall not be infringed" is general. It means by ANY government entity at any level of government that operates as part of the United States.

Look at it this way. If you add a shingle to your roof, does the rest of the house need to agree that this shingle exists? Or is it just part of the roof once installed? Same logic applies.

[tpaine]

----- Just as they [gov't officials] can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Before 14 A. states could.

Why 'could' they? -- Why do you claim that citizens had no right to keep & bear arms before the 14th was adopted?

I see the entire BOR a forbidden list for congress and not the states, at least until the 14th amendment came along.

We adopted the constitution to secure our liberties. It makes no sense to claim that States or local gov'ts can ignore our liberties to bear arms.

[Dead Corpse]

It makes no sense to claim that States or local gov'ts can ignore our liberties to bear arms.

Especially since the ratification Debates at the State level are quite clear on the power and scope of the Constitution and the BoR protections for our Rights.

If certain segments of our population weren't trying so desperately to repress the equal Rights of others, we never would have needed the 14th to begin with. This this trend of oppression continues to today should be a source of National shame. Sad that it isn't.

[tpaine]

What totally baffles me is ~why~ "certain segments of our population are trying so desperately to repress the equal Rights of others".


Their cause and "-- its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. --"
-Arthur Koestler-

[Dead Corpse]

What totally baffles me is ~why~ "certain segments of our population are trying so desperately to repress the equal Rights of others".

Same reason sex offenders are not in it for the sex. It isn't about sex/guns/religion/ect...

It's about POWER. Any other stated "goals" are window dressing to make it more palatable to the "victim".

[William Terrell]

Someone who lived in a territory, which was completely under Congress' authority was a federal citizen declared by Congress' plenary power until the territory became a state or the 14th amendment was ratified.

No, we always were citizens of the USA, as well as of a State or territory. But citizenship status, in any case, does not give the feds any more 'power'. - Why should it?

Yes, but you had to be a citizen of a state first and by virtue of that a citizen of the US. Don't you get it? Before the war, the states were each one of them sovereign, with the central government created by them, with consent of their people to administer the states united business.

Sovereignty over this situation was held by the states, and the measure of sovereignty is the right to grant citizenship. Only a state citizen could hold any office in the central government. Do you see?

At that time the legislatures of the states could stop the central government in its tracks; they could recall the senators. Sovereignty is simply the right to make the final choice in a matter, held by might or right, the states holding it by right and law.

The states created the federal government, creation of a limited sovereignty only possible by a complete sovereignty. The states sovereignty came from the people who consented to hold the state to administer their business, live in its limits and follow its laws for the benefits of group living. "Ordain" and "establish" are acts of sovereignty.

When the forces of the central government won the war, the 14th amendment was passed and ratified, under martial force I might add, then all people were federal citizens, whom the central government wanted to be citizens, not the states, and these citizens could vote and hold federal offices.

This diminished the states' sovereignty with the power to control the people that could play in the central government playground. The sovereignty of citizenship is practical in the legal sense, and prevailing doctrine in the philosophical sense. Judicial notice of these principles is made in any case you care to name, state and federal.

I listened to a video tape recorded in a hearing before a federal judge on a person (known personally to me) who was resisting being called as a witness, challenging federal authority to compel him based on being a state citizen.

The judge said quite clearly that there were no more state citizens any more, that all that was given over to the federal government after the war. In this particular case, he would have been outside the jurisdiction of the federal court had there been state citizens made at the state level.

This is the best I can do and what I understand the game to be from a lot of reading, including SC and State SC cases. If that doesn't do it for you, go your way and God bless.

[William Terrell]

That this was ignored, partly due to racism, was why the 14th was deemed necessary.

Making "Negroes" citizens after the central government won the war and to remedy Dred Scott was a perfect reason to propose the 14th amendment. But, 'waaaay too much has been done under its authority that has nothing remotely to do with making former slaves citizens.

[William Terrell]

When the states ratified the central government's constitution, it was ceded some powers held by the states and people. 6-2 was to keep the states from legislating and ratifying state constitution amendments that would infringe on the powers they ceded to the central government. It is the legal mechanism to cite in such a case before a judicial body.

[FreeReign]

I see the entire BOR a forbidden list for congress and not the states, at least until the 14th amendment came along.

Why does everyone ignore the following two clauses in the Constitution?

Why don't you go find somebody who does ignore the following two clauses, or why don't you interpret the following two clauses correctly?

Art 4. Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The BOR protects citizens of all states from Federal Government power as enumerated. That's an immunity citizens of each state are entitled to.

And... Art 6. Para 2 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.

Previous to the 14th Amendment, the BOR limited federal government powers. The supremacy clause doesn't contradict that.

[tpaine]

Lets back up to the original contentions. Namely:

"-- 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. --"

-- none of the federal BOR could possible apply to the states until the 14th.
The 14th conveyed citizenship at the federal level whereas before it was conveyed at the state level.

I've never understood that argument.
What does citizenship [at any level] have to do with whether the BOR's are part of our supreme Law, - which all officials in the USA are sworn to honor, "notwithstanding" State constitutions or laws?

Nothing you've posted to date has addressed that issue except your anecdote about a self proclaimed 'state citizen' refusing to testify in a [federal] court, - a clear common law duty of any citizen, regardless of the type of court.

You've also ignored the clearly enumerated fact that US Congressmen, - and the President, - must be citizens of the USA in order to hold office. --- If before the 14th, 'citizenship was only conveyed at the state level', how did these officials gain US citizenship?

[tpaine]

FreeReign:

The First Amendment Specifically refers to Congress? States were not bound by the Frist Amendment and the rest of the BOR until the 14th Amendment came along.

You're wrong in that only the establishment clause of the 1st specifically refers to Congress.. And, -- Article VI still binds the states to honor all the provisions of the 1st.
The fact that Congress is expressly forbidden in the 1st from "respecting an establishment of religion" does not allow State or local government [legislative] officials to violate their own oaths to "-- support this Constitution --" by writing laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

----- Just as they can't write valid laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

This same principle applies to all levels of gov't in the USA. -- None of them can write infringements on our supreme Law of the Land.

Previous to the 14th Amendment, the BOR limited federal government powers. The supremacy clause doesn't contradict that.

Art VI. Para 2
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.

The words underlined above clearly contradict your theory that States are not limited by our supreme Law of the Land.

[Dead Corpse]

...or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So tell us Super Genius... what do the above words pertain to if the Constitution ONLY applies to the FedGov? Why did they debate this very point in the First Congress and decide that having a BoR with protections for Rights at the Federal level, that over rode merely State level protections, wasn't such a bad thing as it added another layer of protection?

Let me know if you have any trouble with any of the big words... Click here for more...

[FreeReign]

I see the entire BOR a forbidden list for congress and not the states, at least until the 14th amendment came along.

So tell us Super Genius... what do the above words pertain to if the Constitution ONLY applies to the FedGov?

I never said that the Constitution only applies to the FedGov. I suggest that you reread what I wrote.

Look at what I wrote in bold. Then look at what you said I wrote in italics. Notice that they don't match.

If you have trouble with any sized words that I used -- no word is too small for you -- don't hesitate to ask.

[gitmo]

Of course, the 14th Amendment was never really ratified.

[tpaine]

I never said that the Constitution only applies to the FedGov.

But you did write:

States were not bound by the Frist Amendment and the rest of the BOR until the 14th Amendment came along.

Which I've rebutted in detail at #73. How strange that you can't reply.

[tpaine]

Of course, the 14th Amendment was never really ratified.

And, 'of course', some citizens say that our Constitution does not apply to them.
Sad type of argument.

[steve-b]

Why stop at the 1st amendment? The right of the people to keep and bear arms should also be "incorporated."

Precisely. The passage of the first wave of gun-control laws by ex-confederate states in order to disarm the freedmen (Hey, you ever try to get blood stains out of white sheets? It's a bitch!) was specifically cited on the floor of Congress as one of the abuses that would be prohibited by the new Fourteenth Amendment.

[steve-b]

State sponsored religions were sort of 'grandfathered in' for the original States. -- But look at the trouble Utah had trying to enter the Union while 'respecting' the Mormon religion. Took Utah 40 years to gain statehood.

Utah didn't really have any serious prospects of entering the Union until after the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified (if they had, they'd have gotten in -- the Republicans, anticipating the need to make a few Constitutional amendments after the war, were predisposed to admit as many new free states as possible), so that example is beside the point.