Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (41631)	6/23/1999 3:19:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

OK, this is the simple and quick version. When the Bill of Rights was enacted, it applied only to the federal government. One thing people don't realize is that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to people, but only to governments. So I as an individual have no obligation to honor your First Amendment rights, for instance. (Although there are caveats, but there always are, trust me.<g>)But a court cannot enforce a statute, or a common law, that violates the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted (1865? anyway, right after the Civil War), even then for a long time the United States Supreme Court never held that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Then some "activist" justices started to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment - this really got going in the 20th Century. This is a very contentious subject, as you might expect - I will try to find a few web sites on the history of incorporation of the Bill of Rights, either unbiased, or if not, from several perspectives. This is why the John Birch Society wanted to "Impeach Earl Warren," in case you were wondering.<g>

To: jbe who wrote (41631)	6/23/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

BTW, doublepluscool research, Dudess! This looks like a good site: constitution.org

To: jbe who wrote (41631)	6/23/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

Which brings us to a question that both you and Christopher have touched on, and to which I personally do not know the answer. And that is: why were the states initially left free to legislate matters of religion? The original concept of federalism was closer to the present concept of the European Union than to what we have today. The idea was that the states were the primary political entities, but they banded together for issues that were better dealt with by a larger body, such as the common defense. They also wanted to create a large trading block without internal tariffs, and in which citizens could travel freely from one state to another, so they gave the government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not commerce within a state. So the federal government was given certain specific powers and had certain limits imposed on what it could and could not do. (The technical term is that it was a government of enumerated powers). The states had the power to do everything they wanted to except those things which were specifically restricted to the federal government. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and only said what Congress could not do. Each State (or Commonwealth -- technically, Pennsylvania is not a State but a Commonwealth) had its own Constitution (or similar document) with its own laws and rights. For example, Washington State's privacy provisions are stronger than those of the U.S., so we here have more protections than in states where only the Fifth Amendent protections prevail. This state of affairs continued until the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. The Supreme Court eventually interpreted the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. (And don't get me on the topic of whether that was a totally unjustified power grab by the federal government or an intended consequence of the passage of the 14th Amendment!) The issue is a lot more complex than I can discuss here and has a fascinating history, but that's the capsule version.

To: jbe who wrote (41631)	6/23/1999 6:45:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution did not restrict the States except they were guaranteed a republican form of government. Congress was granted certain enumerated powers. Congress never had the power to intervene except to protect the existence of a republican form of government. In fact most of the states had established religions, and no federal power had the power to intervene. The first amendment applied only to the federal government. The states could be as restrictive as they wished. The major change was the 14th Amendment (1868). This protected persons against states depriving them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It also provided that states could not deprive a person of equal protection of the laws. The gradual incorporation of the original bill of rights into protections against the states by interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been an ongoing process. Today, a state cannot establish religion or interfere with free exercise of religion. They must provide attorneys to protect those accused of serious crimes. They cannot arrest without warrants etc. Left up to the states without the 14th Amendment we would still live under tyranny.