I disagree. IMO the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the states. But it causes some problems if you use the 9th in conjunction with the 14th. The 9th was fine when it was linked with the 10th. But throw in the 14th, and you have a recipe for judicial activism. IMO the 9th was put in place to keep the feds from restricting rights not enumerated in the BOR. But the states still had powers to restrict those unenumerated rights as they saw fit (some states or localities, for example, ban or restrict the consumption of alcohol). Once the 14th came along, it stood in contradiction to the 9th, a situation the courts have resolved by basically ignoring the 9th.
- And made it clear that while states can make law to 'regulate' public acts using due process, they can not prohibit or infringe upon private victimless acts, - IE - 'sins'.
I would disagree to a certain extent. Please review my post above to Khepera that covers my opinions of DUI laws. There is legal precedent to not just act again harm, but also act against a certain probability of harm. And that is what Khepera is talking about. The most sound debate is, how do we mitigate against harm? Prostitution is often NOT victimless - diseases are spread, families are impacted. So what is the proper role of dealing with that, and what can be done to mitigate harm?
I disagree.
IMO the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
I have the same opinion, - thus, we agree overall on the 14th.
But it causes some problems if you use the 9th in conjunction with the 14th. The 9th was fine when it was linked with the 10th. But throw in the 14th, and you have a recipe for judicial activism. IMO the 9th was put in place to keep the feds from restricting rights not enumerated in the BOR.
The 9th & 10th are still linked & valid. You are right about the purpose of the 9th, but it wasn't working after the civil war. Thus, the 14th was necessary to defend even the 2nd, among the others.
Read the ratification debates from 1868. Lots of good points defending gun rights, which were being violated by states.
But the states still had powers to restrict those unenumerated rights as they saw fit (some states or localities, for example, ban or restrict the consumption of alcohol).
Yep, states & localities can lawfully 'regulate' the public possession & use of booze. But in private, on private property, - imo, -- they have no such power, and never have had. 'Fiat' prohibitions of harmless types of property are unconstitutional, in my book.
Once the 14th came along, it stood in contradiction to the 9th, a situation the courts have resolved by basically ignoring the 9th.
I don't 'see' the contradiction. Can you explain further?
---------------------------
- And made it clear that while states can make law to 'regulate' public acts using due process, they can not prohibit or infringe upon private victimless acts, - IE - 'sins'.
I would disagree to a certain extent. Please review my post above to Khepera that covers my opinions of DUI laws. There is legal precedent to not just act again harm, but also act against a certain probability of harm. And that is what Khepera is talking about. The most sound debate is, how do we mitigate against harm?
We discussed DUI just the other day. I agreed it is a legal use of the police power of states, if used with extreme caution for violations of due process.
Prostitution is often NOT victimless - diseases are spread, families are impacted. So what is the proper role of dealing with that, and what can be done to mitigate harm?
The state of Nevada is the proper 'role model', imo.