Duuude! Who cares about liquor? Now, don't Bogart that j-bar and pass it on!
Posted on 07/23/2002 9:06:57 AM PDT by Maceman
Related question: From where do the feds derive power to prohibit church/state entanglement? The First Amendment says that "Congress" shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. It says nothing about the states. And it is well known that Mass. had an established religion (congregationalism, I think) well into the 19th century.When one sees the First (and Second) Amendments as protecting the rights of individuals in addition to the states, then the effect of the "grafting" makes sense. Individuals were protected from the effects of Establishment. As supporters of freedom, I'd think we'd support these interpretations, especially if we live in Massachussetts or Alabama.The answer is not that the 14th Amendment grafted the federal bill of rights onto the states, because that would simply mean that the states were protected from "Congress" making any law respecting religion - a right they already had. It may have something to do with the privileges and immunities clause, but I don't know.
One point to note is that many state constitutions have their own Bills of Rights. An interesting side note to the Santa Fe ISD v. Doe case is the fact that part of the dispute was whether or not a governmental preference of one religion or another constitutes "Establishment". The Texas Constitution specifically forbids religious preference by government.
-Eric
Yes! Yes! Thank You! I argue with people over this almost every day! Punctuation "inside" applies to the quote, while "outside" punctuation applies to the sentence.
Actually, I have been in this discussion before. There are many who believe as I. I ask you, to show me where any founder indicated that the BoR could be altered. The Constitution amended, yes, but an alteration of the BoR would be an act of war. Why make it if it could be changed a few years later?Theoretically any part of the Constitution can be changed, including any amendment. The very difficulty of the process of Amendment was intended as a defense against frivolous change. Indeed, the problem with state constitutions is that many can be easily amended (sometimes with just a referendum).
-Eric
I think you could make some wine for personal use. As well as the "sacramental" and "industrial" exceptions, you could also get medicines with high alcohol content with a prescription.
As for "racism" and "xenophobia," it was inevitable that some groups used marijuana or opiates -- or alcohol -- more than others, so there would inevitably be such propaganda elements in any drive toward prohibition of drugs and alcohol. That wasn't and isn't any reason to discount or discredit the arguments of the prohibitionists on their face. Our contemporaries assume that their own distaste for such arguments is proof that those who used them had no case or were uniquivocally on the wrong side, but that's not the case. If it were, it would apply equally to present-day arguments over "ethnic profiling." It is true, though, that in the majority culture, alcohol and opiates could be obtained through patent and prescription medicines, rather than in unprocessed form.
Harder to rationalize is tobacco.
Ostensibly, always a legal substance.
Attempting to tax it out of existience is the functional equivalent to banning it.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
- Congressional testimony of Harry Anslinger
Don't limit that to the Dems. The Republicans are the biggest threat to the 4th amendment. All of our "rulers" do what they want - Constitution be damned.
I challenge you to show me where any founder indicated that the BoR could be changed. Oh, it can, but its an act of war. This was understood for many years. That's why the BoR has been altered via executive fiat and judicial activism.
Where do you get the idea that any part of the Constitution is exempt from amendment? Nothing in Article V indicates this, so in theory the Bill of Rights could in fact be repealed through the amendment process.
The BoR is set in stone. It can not be changed. the notion that it could be is contrary to the entire spirit of the Constitution.
The only active limitation on ammendments is found in Article V, no ammendment may deprive a state of its "equal suffrage in the senate" without its consent. While I agree that repealing any of the bill of rights would not be in agreement with the original intent of the founders, we have a government (and apparently a people) which is not terribly concerned with original intent.
There is nothing within the Constitution to prevent repeal of any or all of the bill of rights. No, the only true safeguard of our rights is in the people.
The First and Second Amendments are different in this important respect: The First only circumscribes action by "Congress," whereas the Second contains no such limitation. In fact, the First Amendment is one of the very few - perhaps only - amendment which specifically limits action by "Congress." Thus, all the amendments which do not limit themselves by specifically applying only to "Congress" created real, additional rights when they were grafted onto the states by the 14th Amendment. Conversely, grafting the First Amendment onto the states did nothing. Before the 14th, Congress was prohibited from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. After the 14th, Congress was still prohibited from making any law respecting the establishment of religion. The 14th could not have limited each individual state's power to establish a religion because the underlying First Amendment applies only to "Congress."
I still think the answer must have something to do with the privileges and immunities clause, if a satisfactory answer exists.
Duuude! Who cares about liquor? Now, don't Bogart that j-bar and pass it on!
This was so well understood that it didn't have to be written down. Proposing an amendment to negate one of the first ten amendments would be treason and an act of war. Otherwise, why even have a BoR if it could be changed down the road? The BoR recognizes inherent rights - rights a government can not take, and it is not a complete list. So, please, show me where any founder said that, upon ratification by the States, the federal government can take inherent rights?
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.