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.
A great point to debate. Is it better to make prostitution illegal, or try to come up with legal controls for it? Go for it, guys, and try to respect each other's points. I don't think either one of you is in favor of crack whores running around spreading AIDS. How do we combat that?
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.
For a politician or bureaucrat of that time having just witnessed the civil war wherein the citizens took up arms against one another and one side against the government, no doubt they were concerned. Visions in their head of, "but what if they ever join forces against the government (state of federal) and we can't pit one against the other? Damn, we better work to diminish the Second Amendment."
In the war of two worlds between the value creators and value destroyers I think the value destroyers prefer a gun war over a cyberspace/communication/information war. That is, they probably think they have more ammunition in pitting the military against the people where they have a greater chance of winning by brute force as opposed to not having a snowballs chance in hell of winning in fair/unbiased debate forums. This is an opportunity for a biased mainstream media to redeem itself.
The state of Nevada is the proper 'role model', imo.
In Nevada, prostitution being decriminalized or not illegal (however you want to reference it) has not caused society and the individuals that form it to run headlong into destruction. Yet as soon as a person steps into another state, say for example Arizona, politicians and bureaucrats in Arizona proclaim that they protect the little guy from prostitution that would surely run society headlong into destruction if it were legal.