SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (115871)5/24/2005 2:51:12 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) of 793801
 
But the history of the Constitution is clear. It was NOT intended to restrain states vis-a-vis their own citizens. It was intended to be a pact between the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, it applied to the federal government. That's why it says things like "Congress shall make no law."

No offense but I thought you were both old enough to have learned it as it happened and/or educated enough to have learned it in school or by reading the newspapers -- the Bill of Rights has been selectively incorporated into application to the states vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment, but only "fundamental rights." (Which begs the question of which rights are "fundamental." That's why I like the sex toys case.)

To really comprehend the arguments about judicial activism, you need to study the history of incorporation, which is crazy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News