Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 95

Thread: Can states lawfully violate your constitutional rights?

  1. #1

    Can states lawfully violate your constitutional rights?

    People saying that the rights protected by the constitution dont apply to states.

    States can violate whatever rights they want.

    wtf?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    People saying that the rights protected by the constitution dont apply to states.
    The Founders stated that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the States. Proposals at the Philadelphia ratifying convention were made to force States to comply, but were rejected. It is arguable that the Constitution would never have been ratified had States been forced to comply. We look to Article 1, Section 10 to find what States are not allowed to do. Amendment 10 affords all other powers to the States. This idea was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore and once in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases.

    It was not until 1925 that a progressive Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights do, in fact, apply to the States (Gitlow v. New York).

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    States can violate whatever rights they want.

    wtf?
    States cannot do what they want. They cannot perform any action outlawed in Article 1, Section 10. More importantly, they are bound by their own Constitutions. For example, almost every right and liberty found in the Bill of Rights, you can find in the Pennsylvania Constitution in Article 1.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The Founders stated that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the States. Proposals at the Philadelphia ratifying convention were made to force States to comply, but were rejected. It is arguable that the Constitution would never have been ratified had States been forced to comply. We look to Article 1, Section 10 to find what States are not allowed to do. Amendment 10 affords all other powers to the States. This idea was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore and once in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases.

    It was not until 1925 that a progressive Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights do, in fact, apply to the States (Gitlow v. New York).

    States cannot do what they want. They cannot perform any action outlawed in Article 1, Section 10. More importantly, they are bound by their own Constitutions. For example, almost every right and liberty found in the Bill of Rights, you can find in the Pennsylvania Constitution in Article 1.
    So if a state's constitution doesnt have an amendment protecting freedom of religion (for example), the state could ban Christianity and the people of that state could not challenge legally challenge this law?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    So if a state's constitution doesnt have an amendment protecting freedom of religion (for example), the state could ban Christianity and the people of that state could not challenge legally challenge this law?
    No, because the Free Excercise Clause of the First Amendment has been held to apply to the States via its "incorporation" into the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Even if this had not been done the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause would argubly prevent a State from discriminating against different religions.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    So if a state's constitution doesnt have an amendment protecting freedom of religion (for example), the state could ban Christianity and the people of that state could not challenge legally challenge this law?
    Yes and no. The original understanding of the Constitution of the United States is mum on States establishing religions. Even if the people of the various States rejected an official religion, the notion that those people would be forbidden from choosing for themselves was appalling to most Founders. If, in fact, a State's Constitution permitted the banning of a specific religion and/or establishing an official religion, the people can band together to amend the Constitution to say otherwise.

    However, as noted above, since 1925 the ever-increasing progressive Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment as a justification for applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Despite the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowing that concept.

  7. #6
    Now let's tie the Second Amendment into all of that, and ask why I can't just carry my AK over into Illinois.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  8. #7
    The Constitution is not a Federal Paper, its not a State paper, its the Charter and Foundation
    of how this Country was to operate, authored by our founders much of it borrowed from
    earlier times.
    The Constitution , including the Bill of Rights cannot be un-applied to any us Citizen
    without due process, States nor the Fed have the right to ignore nor the right to not
    uphold and adhere to it, Congress can amend it , but short of that , any law maker that
    chooses to circumvent it is not fit for office, they are Oathbreakers and should be expelled
    from any governmental capacities.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    However, as noted above, since 1925 the ever-increasing progressive Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment as a justification for applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Despite the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowing that concept.
    Several of the framers of the 14th Amendment, especially Representative Bingham and Senator Howard, thought it would make the first eight Amendments of the Constitution applicable to the States. See Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 (1947), and the appendix he added to his opinion, which discusses the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Several of the framers of the 14th Amendment, especially Representative Bingham and Senator Howard, thought it would make the first eight Amendments of the Constitution applicable to the States. See Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 (1947), and the appendix he added to his opinion, which discusses the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.
    I'm all for discussing the history of the 14th Amendment. We could start by discussing whether the 14th Amendment was even legally ratified.

    Is your point that Justice Black's opinion on what the framers intended ought to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

  12. #10
    Article 6 applies the Constitution to the states, the BoR is part of the Constitution.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I'm all for discussing the history of the 14th Amendment. We could start by discussing whether the 14th Amendment was even legally ratified.

    Is your point that Justice Black's opinion on what the framers intended ought to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
    My only point was that not all of the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowed the notion that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

    For what it's worth, I think The Slaughter-House Cases may have been wrongly decided, and that it might have been better to apply the BOR to the States via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, rather than using the Due Process Clause.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, because the Free Excercise Clause of the First Amendment has been held to apply to the States via its "incorporation" into the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Even if this had not been done the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause would argubly prevent a State from discriminating against different religions.
    Religion wasnt a good example because it touches on a few different subjects.

    I think a better example would be the 2A especially since some state constitutions (NY NJ CA etc) dont seek to protect the right of self defense.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    My only point was that not all of the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowed the notion that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
    Fair enough. However, Justice Black gives entirely too much credit to the words of Senator Howard and Congressman Bingham. Law Professor Raoul Berger points out in his book The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights that Bingham often confused his colleagues with contradictory statements and both were seemingly in the minority on incorporation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    For what it's worth, I think The Slaughter-House Cases may have been wrongly decided, and that it might have been better to apply the BOR to the States via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, rather than using the Due Process Clause.
    The Court's reasoning in the Slaughterhouse Cases is correct. The term "Privileges and Immunities" has been used since the Article of Confederation and when it was adopted into Article IV of the Constitution, there was no debate on the intended meaning. The meaning (as upheld in numerous Court cases prior to the 20th Century) simply means the right of peoples to move freely between States without the need to naturalize.

  16. #14
    Marbury / Madison 1803 :

    ''All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void''

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    Now let's tie the Second Amendment into all of that, and ask why I can't just carry my AK over into Illinois.
    Chicago & NYC certainly need more AK's, go for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The Court's reasoning in the Slaughterhouse Cases is correct. The term "Privileges and Immunities" has been used since the Article of Confederation and when it was adopted into Article IV of the Constitution, there was no debate on the intended meaning. The meaning (as upheld in numerous Court cases prior to the 20th Century) simply means the right of peoples to move freely between States without the need to naturalize.
    There was and is plenty of debate over the intended meaning. For example, Bingham thought the original Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV incorporated the Bill of Rights and that Barron v. Baltimore had been wrongly decided. Slaughter-House was a 5-4 decision. See Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 472 (2010) and the articles I have cited previously here:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-tyranny/page3

    It's interesting that one of the P&I's protected by the 14th Amendment that was recognized by the majority opinion in Slaughter-House was the right to assemble and petition, which is also protected by the First Amendment. So it appears Bingham was partially right.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 02-18-2020 at 10:10 AM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There was and is plenty of debate over the intended meaning.
    Until the 20th Century, the predominant interpretation of the P&I term was also the original intention and meaning born in 1777.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    For example, Bingham thought the original Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV incorporated the Bill of Rights and that Barron v. Baltimore had been wrongly decided.
    Bingham's notion that the 14th Amendment provided full incorporation was soundly rejected by the majority of the framers. His own colleagues thought he was too radical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Slaughter-House was a 5-4 decision. See Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 472 (2010) and the articles I have cited previously here:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-tyranny/page3
    Justice Thomas is wrong. I am familiar with his opinion cited, but intensely disagree.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, because the Free Excercise Clause of the First Amendment has been held to apply to the States via its "incorporation" into the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Even if this had not been done the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause would argubly prevent a State from discriminating against different religions.
    Religion wasnt a good example because it touches on a few different subjects.

    I think a better example would be the 2A especially since some state constitutions (NY NJ CA etc) dont seek to protect the right of self defense.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Yes and no. The original understanding of the Constitution of the United States is mum on States establishing religions. Even if the people of the various States rejected an official religion, the notion that those people would be forbidden from choosing for themselves was appalling to most Founders. If, in fact, a State's Constitution permitted the banning of a specific religion and/or establishing an official religion, the people can band together to amend the Constitution to say otherwise.

    However, as noted above, since 1925 the ever-increasing progressive Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment as a justification for applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Despite the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowing that concept.
    When you say that a progressive SCOTUS applied the BOR to the states, thats to say that the state governments would then be limited as to what they can do in the same way that the federal government is limited.

    If youre saying that the protections people have under the BOR also extends to the states, then I wouldnt say thats a progressive concept but more libertarian as it seeks to protect individual liberties from government infringement.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Marbury / Madison 1803 :

    ''All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void''
    Its blowing my mind but there seems to be some debate as to whether a state can legally pass laws which violate the constitution (at least prior to SCOTUS interpretation)...
    Last edited by unknown; 02-18-2020 at 04:58 PM.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Yes and no. The original understanding of the Constitution of the United States is mum on States establishing religions. Even if the people of the various States rejected an official religion, the notion that those people would be forbidden from choosing for themselves was appalling to most Founders. If, in fact, a State's Constitution permitted the banning of a specific religion and/or establishing an official religion, the people can band together to amend the Constitution to say otherwise.

    However, as noted above, since 1925 the ever-increasing progressive Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment as a justification for applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Despite the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowing that concept.
    So youre saying, if a state doesnt have an amendment protecting the right to defend yourself, bear arms etc, then a state could legally ban the civilian ownership of firearms without violating the constitution, atleast prior to the 1925 "progressive" SCOTUS.

    And that the FF never intended for the BOR protections to apply to everyone in the US regardless of their state...
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Marbury / Madison 1803 :

    ''All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void''

    A6:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Its blowing my mind but there seems to be some debate as to whether a state can legally pass laws which violate the constitution (at least prior to SCOTUS interpretation)...
    Yeah, I can see that, its like where you might have a dead person on one side
    that died years ago, and a living breathing, fully functioning, one on the other ,
    there are always people out there that endeavor re define what life is and what death is,
    to the point where it would be impossible to determine which of the two were alive
    by their interpretative revisionism.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A6:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    If youre saying that the protections people have under the BOR also extends to the states, then I wouldnt say thats a progressive concept but more libertarian as it seeks to protect individual liberties from government infringement.
    Applying the Bill of Rights to the States means that federalism is lost and the general government grows more powerful than the individual States. That is a progressive idea.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    So youre saying, if a state doesnt have an amendment protecting the right to defend yourself, bear arms etc, then a state could legally ban the civilian ownership of firearms without violating the constitution, atleast prior to the 1925 "progressive" SCOTUS.
    Basically. Unless the people in that State amend the Constitution to say otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    And that the FF never intended for the BOR protections to apply to everyone in the US regardless of their state...
    You have to understand that the Founders viewed the colonies as individual sovereign countries. In fact, the Continental Congress requested that each colony declare their own independence from England separate from the Declaration of Independence. So when it was time to craft the Constitution, retaining State sovereignty was critical to its ratification. A large segment of the population thought that the Constitution proper would destroy that sovereignty. Despite promises of the contrary, the resistors (known as Anti-Federalists) won the argument for including the Bill of Rights. These Amendments were included to restrain and abridge the powers of the general government only.

    However, Madison introduced the concept that the Bill of Rights should apply to the States, but that idea was rejected. The Constitution WITH the Bill of Rights was ratified by a hair. Historians have shown that it was due to political maneuvering by the Federalists that the Constitution ended up ratified. It was not necessarily due to popular support. Again, the sentiment was that States would lose their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves as they largely did as colonies.
    Last edited by familydog; 02-18-2020 at 08:55 PM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Applying the Bill of Rights to the States means that federalism is lost and the general government grows more powerful than the individual States. That is a progressive idea.
    WRONG.

    Not Applying it means the states may violate the rights of the individual, THAT is a progressive idea.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    WRONG.

    Not Applying it means the states may violate the rights of the individual, THAT is a progressive idea.
    You can defend the incorporation doctrine. That is a valid argument to make. I disagree with it, but it is perfectly reasonable. However, let us not pretend like incorporation is something that it is not. The concept is the complete opposite of the Founder's intentions that gained traction in the Supreme Court during the progressive era. The objective of the progressive was two-fold. The first objective was to centralize and concentrate power within the general government. Their second goal was to try and eliminate as much State sovereignty as possible. State sovereignty is seen as undemocratic and backwards. But this is nothing new and we saw these arguments during the ratification debates.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You can defend the incorporation doctrine. That is a valid argument to make. I disagree with it, but it is perfectly reasonable. However, let us not pretend like incorporation is something that it is not. The concept is the complete opposite of the Founder's intentions that gained traction in the Supreme Court during the progressive era. The objective of the progressive was two-fold. The first objective was to centralize and concentrate power within the general government. Their second goal was to try and eliminate as much State sovereignty as possible. State sovereignty is seen as undemocratic and backwards. But this is nothing new and we saw these arguments during the ratification debates.
    State sovereignty was never intended to extend to violating the basic GOD given rights of Americans.
    To not extend the BoR to the states does far more to fulfill the primary objective of the progressives than it does to hamper their secondary objective.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Basically. Unless the people in that State amend the Constitution to say otherwise.

    You have to understand that the Founders viewed the colonies as individual sovereign countries. In fact, the Continental Congress requested that each colony declare their own independence from England separate from the Declaration of Independence. So when it was time to craft the Constitution, retaining State sovereignty was critical to its ratification. A large segment of the population thought that the Constitution proper would destroy that sovereignty. Despite promises of the contrary, the resistors (known as Anti-Federalists) won the argument for including the Bill of Rights. These Amendments were included to restrain and abridge the powers of the general government only.

    However, Madison introduced the concept that the Bill of Rights should apply to the States, but that idea was rejected. The Constitution WITH the Bill of Rights was ratified by a hair. Historians have shown that it was due to political maneuvering by the Federalists that the Constitution ended up ratified. It was not necessarily due to popular support. Again, the sentiment was that States would lose their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves as they largely did as colonies.
    I would probably agree with some of what you said, that the states are more powerful than the Feds, that the Feds' power to exist actually comes from the states and that infringing on states' rights would be a big government progressive ideal.

    But if youre trying to assert that the FFs would have been fine with states infringing on individual rights: due process, search/seizure, freedom of speech, religion, right to assemble, right to bear arms etc., then youre insane.

    "The Feds have no right to infringe on rights but the states can infringe on whatever rights they want (as long as their state constitution doesnt forbid it) because its essentially an individual nation."

    Everything about the constitution, declaration of independence, ratifying conventions, the American Revolution etc, contradicts this premise.

    The Second Amendment alone contradicts this premise.

    While militias are all of the people, where are actual militias formed? In the states, on the state level... Militia officers dont have federal commissions, they have state commissions...
    Last edited by unknown; 02-19-2020 at 02:34 PM.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2017, 08:40 AM
  2. Did A&E violate section 7 of the Civil Rights Act?
    By torchbearer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 12-25-2013, 03:53 AM
  3. Civil Liberties: Can states violate their citizen's constitutional rights in a Ron Paul world?
    By noxnoctum in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2012, 09:48 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 11:57 AM
  5. Does Obama Care violate your rights?
    By Napoleon's Shadow in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •