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 : President Barack Obama

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: nigel bates who wrote (32236)9/12/2008 7:31:11 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 149317
 
I'm afraid you just don't understand (or have never taken the trouble to discover) your own nation's constitutional history.
I attempted to explain this to you in earlier posts.
Amendment rights were not binding on states when they were incorporated into the Constitution. They should have been, and Madison argued strongly for a specific amendment which would have made them so. He was defeated in that effort.
The actual status of amendment rights was unclear until 1833, when the Supreme Court ruled in explicit terms that they were not binding.


Didn't Justice Marshall think the Constitution was binding on states and didn't the SC so decide a number of times in the early 1800's? See Worcester v Georgia, Cohens v Virginia, McCulloch v Maryland, Martin v Hunters Lessee, and especially Fletcher v Peck (the SC ruled a state law unconstitutional).

I'll admit Barrons vs Baltimore went the way you say.

Looks to me like things are a little more complicated than what you outlined. But you're free to interpret history in whatever frame you wish.

----------------------------------------------------------

>>Thats because they worded it pretty clearly. <<

As well as not being an historian, you're clearly not a lawyer.


Thank you. I am not a lawyer.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext