Skip to comments.
The Founders' Intent for the First Amendment
CPI News ^
| May 3, 2002
| Nathan McClintock
Posted on 05/03/2002 6:28:44 PM PDT by NathanM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
To: edsheppa
...the author of that article I linked definitely thinks that substantive due process is based on an interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th.And I'm not disputing that point (at least not here, anyway). It's true that it looks like I was disputing it earlier, but that's because I had misunderstood what you were getting at (which I agree was my fault). What I'm saying (now that I do understand your point) is that substantive due process doesn't seem to cover the rest of the bill of rights. It doesn't, in and of itself, mean that the state can't do what the first amendment prohibits the federal government from doing.
21
posted on
05/06/2002 8:16:04 AM PDT
by
inquest
To: edsheppa
...the founders were wise enough (the second time around) to make it possible to amend the constitution and thereby change the law of the land - even is ways of which they might disapprove.Agreed.
22
posted on
05/06/2002 8:17:57 AM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
I'd have to be shown that. From what I've read it appears the SC has extended first amendment prohibitions to the states. Do you have an example in which the SC has allowed state regulation of speech or religion in a way it has denied the federal gov't?
23
posted on
05/06/2002 9:31:22 AM PDT
by
edsheppa
To: edsheppa
Do you have an example in which the SC has allowed state regulation of speech or religion in a way it has denied the federal gov't?I thought I did but I don't. When I went to look, I found that I had been more confused that I thought. I had always heard that it was the "privileges and immunities" clause that the courts cited in imposing the BOR on the states, but you're right, it does look to be the substantive due process doctrine. Thanks for the heads up. I'm glad we had this conversation.
24
posted on
05/06/2002 12:02:45 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
I have more information on the 14th Amendment, which I will publish in next week's column. To some, it may be rather surprising! Also, I have current examples of SC that "violate" the Fed Constitution. All that and more, soon. I will post links to the articles on this thread.
25
posted on
05/06/2002 5:18:25 PM PDT
by
NathanM
To: NathanM
Be looking forward to it. Thanks.
26
posted on
05/06/2002 6:21:58 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
27
posted on
05/13/2002 7:28:20 PM PDT
by
CPI News
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson