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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (73412)	8/27/2003 12:07:19 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

The fact that there are possible alternative readings does not, in and of itself, invalidate the reading that has taken root. Unless it can be shown that there is a compelling reason to overturn the relevant case law, the court will let it stand. I do not think that Keyes comes near to showing that there is compelling reason. For example, the idea of separating the Establishment Clause from the Free Exercise clause is specious. Clearly, the same rationale applies to each: freedom of conscience in one's religious profession. They are reciprocal. The further idea that he tries to introduce, that the Establishment Clause has no bearing on the individual, but only on the "People", is silly. The underlying liberty of conscience belongs to the individual, not any group. As for incorporation, it was always intended that the 14th amendment establish a right of federal intervention in protection of individual rights against state abuse--- in the first instance, rights of due process for former slaves. Once state due process standards were to conform to federal standards, it was reasonable that this be extended to include civil liberties generally, so that the those guarantees belonging to one as a citizen of the United States could not be deprived one as a citizen of a state. Keyes ignores the rational, and offers no cogent argument against the doctrine, merely claiming it is something ginned up to arrogate power to the federal courts........

To: Bill who wrote (73412)	8/27/2003 12:24:36 PM
From: G_Barr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Although a very complex subject, incorporation has always been on very solid ground. Take this quote from John Bingham indicating that the 14th amendment was intended to overrule Barron v. Baltimore and apply the first 8 amendments to the states: "The fourteenth amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article" John Bingham of course was the primary author of the 14th amendment.