Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (102447)	2/27/2005 6:30:41 PM
From: Ilaine	of 793800

You can use the 9th and 10th to justify anything you want. This is an old, old argument, as old as the Foundation. This is why some of the Founders didn't want a Bill of Rights, they were afraid (correctly, as it turned out) that some people would argue that only specifically enumerated rights existed. I can't do all the arguments justice, there were many eloquent men making many fine arguments, as there are today. Fun to read about, fun to argue about, but it all comes down to the individual principles and values of the actual sitting justices. I think "original intent" was to limit the power of the Government over the people. Originally the Constitution was interpreted as a check solely on the federal government, not state governments, Barron v. Baltimore (1833). Not even the First Amendment applied to the states until those bad old "activists" on the mid-20th century Supreme Court started ruling that the Bill of Rights was incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, commencing with Gitlow v. New York (1925). So the argument that the First Amendment should be interpreted as applying to the states exactly as the Founders intended is based on a false premise.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next