Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Must be a typo.-- I'm sure he really meant: ---

“The United States Constitution is the most libertarian document ever adopted into law.”

Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Must be a typo.-- I'm sure he really meant: ---

CLASSICAL
liberal

Adam
Smith

(( invisible ))
(( hand ))

GOD

Ten
Commandments

Thou
shall
not

lie
steal
murder
covet

worship
false
gods
religions
science

esp
Marxism
evolution

based
on
DIVINE
law
design

NOT
anarchy

man
made
law
politics

mobacracy

degenerate
libertarian

degenerate
liberal

same
thing

Make
America
straight
great
again

love
boris

ps

the
... blind
leading
the
... blind

"Is the Constitution Libertarian?"

I think it's Presbyterian.

Martin
Luther

reformation

separation
elimination
of
... tyrannies

Make
America
America
again

love
boris

ps

the
enlightenment
was
just
the
evolution
of
the
serial
battered
husband
syndrome
we
experience
via
... savages
continously

"Thus, Barnett explained that the first ten Amendments only restricted federal powers"

Bwahahahaha.

mentioned

very
often

* individual *
* plural *

* property *
rights

meaning
man
w / o
his
property

has
no
freedom

such
is
the
case
any
more

a
guy
in
hand
cuffs
said
so

< quote >

is
this
STILL
America
I'm
in

< quote / >

on
60
minutes

going
to
jail

for
property
he
leased

for
trash
disposal
business

for
a
pollution
violition

he
wasn't
involved
in

Make
America
America
again

love
boris

Barnett also indicated that he believed that “the United States Constitution is the most liberal document ever adopted into law.”

Must be a typo.-- I'm sure he really meant: ---

“The United States Constitution is the most libertarian document ever adopted into law.”

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/7th-annual-constitution-day-annual-b-kenneth-simon-lecture-constitution

It is at the end of his speech and is the second sentence spoken in the Conclusion which begins at 40:51. Barnett clearly said,

As written, the Constitution of the United States may be the most explicitly libertarian governing document ever written into law.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=facpub

2009
Is the Constitution Libertarian?

Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown University Law Center, rb325@law.georgetown.edu

Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 1432854

An abbreviated version of this article was delivered as the 7th Annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture atthe Cato Institute on Constitution Day, September 17, 2008.

This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/827
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1432854

In his expanded published version, he tweaked the language slightly,

As written, the original Constitution of the United States, together with its amendments, may be the most explicitly libertarian governing document ever written into law.

Thus, Barnett explained that the first ten Amendments only restricted federal powers, but the states still retained their power to enslave some of their citizens.

Bwahahaha,--- Roscoe

Maniacal laughter from roscoe, agreeing that States had the right to ignore individual rights. (and still do about guns, according to misterwhite)

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

"As written, the original Constitution of the United States, together with its amendments, may be the most explicitly libertarian governing document ever written into law."

He should tweak it again to say, "As written, the original Constitution of the United States, together with its first ten amendments, may be the most explicitly libertarian governing document ever written into law.

Maniacal laughter from roscoe, agreeing that States had the right to ignore individual rights. (and still do about guns, according to misterwhite)

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights:

Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

The people delegated certain powers to the Federal government, other powers to their State government, and retained the rest to themselves. The original Bill of Rights acted as a negative statement of restraint upon the Federal government. There was no grant of any new power therein.

Regarding the delegation of powers to the State governments, the people retained to themselves the power to effect such delegation. They had largely done so prior to the existence of the Constitution. They had largely adopted their own Bills of Rights prior to the Constitution. The Federal Bill of Rights was largely adapted from the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776, which preceded the Virginia constitution of June 29, 1776, which followed the Virginia declaration of independence from Great Britain prefacing its constitution: "By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."

The people of 1789 or 1791 did not delegate to the Federal government the power to dictate what the powers of their State government would or would not be. The BoR delegated no powers to the Federal government, then or now. There was no enforcement mechanism akin to the 14th Amendment.

Rule #1: Read what you're posting before you post it.

Wouldn't make any difference to his willful ignorance.

He and misterwhite are anti-constitutional idiots.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights: ---- Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Barnett would agree that many any people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not side with you clowns on this issue. Barnett is a patriot.

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

Gee, it look like you just called Randy Barnett a "GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST." He's the author of the quote.

Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Aspen Publishers, 2008, pg. 158, Section D, The Bill of Rights: ---- Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It's from his big ol' lawbook, one of those things you don't read.

In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. -- nolu, citing Barnett ---

Barnett would agree that many people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not side with you clowns on this issue. Barnett is a patriot.

Gee, it look like you just called Randy Barnett a "GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST." He's the author of the quote.

Gee, it looks like you didn't read the last part of my reply, you idiot.

Or, is their something wrong with you, mentality, besides your idiocy?

Really, seek help.

"It's from his big ol' lawbook, one of those things you don't read."

He cites Barnett all the time when it supports his opinion.

He (Tpaine) cites Barnett all the time when it supports his opinion.

Damn right. I've read a lot of Barnetts writing, and I agree with his constitutional outlook, by and large.

It's obvious you anti-constitutionalists do not..

He cites Barnett all the time when it supports his opinion.

He cites Barnett even when it doesn't support his opinion.

Barnett agreed it is settled law with the precedent going back to 1833 and with every opinion of every Federal court since 1833 agreeing that the BoR does not apply to the States, then or now.

Deal with it.

Barnett would agree that many people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Thus your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not agree with you anti-constitutionalists.

Mocking you clowns is how I deal with it.

Barnett would agree that many people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost. The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). That precedent stood throught the Civil War and it stands today.

See, for example:

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

Today most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

In Barron v. Baltiore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Barnett would agree that many any people did NOT agree with the 'settled view', which was one of the causes of the civil war.

Your attempt to cite Barnett fails, as he does not side with you clowns on this issue. Barnett is a patriot.

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost.

It was ONE of the causes, you idiot.

The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore,

That was the 'settled opinion', but it was wrong, and in any case, even 'settled' opinions do not change our Constitution.

Our right to bear arms has never been subject to banns by ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

Most people, yes, but roscoe, misterwhite, and YOU do not. ALL THREE OF YOU ARE GUNGRABBING ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST's.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Your absurd claim on gun rights shows your ignorance. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the Fourteenth Amendment made "the right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

Damn, if the settled view that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States was a cause of the Civil War, the North must have lost.

It was ONE of the causes, you idiot.

The BoR did not apply to the States when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the still standing precedent in Barron v. Baltimore,

That was the 'settled opinion', but it was wrong, and in any case, even 'settled' opinions do not change our Constitution.

Our right to bear arms has never been subject to banns by ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now. ---- The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part: ---,- No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ----- It does not apply the BoR to the States,

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

tpaine #24 quoting from the 14th Amendment of 1868, leaving out the phrase "without due process of law." If this were the people's protection of the RKBA, any state could take your guns after establishing the process it deemed due for doing so. The RKBA would be the same as the right pertaining to all ordinary property.

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

To be sure, the 14th Amendment did nothing prior to 1868.

Of course, various rights were incorporated after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is as I said, and contrary to your ignorant blathering that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 3:15-cv-0335-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Mar 30, 2016)

Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.).

It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not apply to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Your absurd claim on gun rights shows your ignorance. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the Fourteenth Amendment made "the right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.

[tpaine #26] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,

On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit.

tpaine #24 quoting from the 14th Amendment of 1868, leaving out the phrase "without due process of law." If this were the people's protection of the RKBA, any state could take your guns after establishing the process it deemed due for doing so. The RKBA would be the same as the right pertaining to all ordinary property.

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

To be sure, the 14th Amendment did nothing prior to 1868.

Of course, various rights were incorporated after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is as I said, and contrary to your ignorant blathering that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Henry A. v. Willden, 2:10-cv-00528-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Feb 27, 2013)

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, see U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), was not adopted until 1868. The Declaration of Rights that comprises Article I of the Nevada Constitution, which was adopted in 1864, was therefore necessary in order to impose certain restrictions upon the State of Nevada that were already imposed against the federal government under the Bill of Rights, and the Nevada Supreme Court has not interpreted the protections of the Declaration of Rights to exceed the scope of their federal counterparts. Michael W. Bowers, The Sagebrush State 43-44 (3rd ed., Univ. Nev. Press 2006); Michael W. Bowers, The Nevada State Constitution 24 (1993).

It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not apply to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Your absurd claim on gun rights shows your ignorance. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) held that the Fourteenth Amendment made "the right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.

[tpaine #28] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,

On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit.

tpaine #24 quoting from the 14th Amendment of 1868, leaving out the phrase "without due process of law." If this were the people's protection of the RKBA, any state could take your guns after establishing the process it deemed due for doing so. The RKBA would be the same as the right pertaining to all ordinary property.

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

To be sure, the 14th Amendment did nothing prior to 1868.

Of course, various rights were incorporated after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is as I said, and contrary to your ignorant blathering that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

BARTEE v. YANOFF, (E.D.Pa. 1981), 514 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Pa. 1981), n. 3

³ In his brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiff relies primarily on the due process clause of the fifth amendment. However, plaintiff's cause of action may not be asserted directly under the fifth amendment since the fifth amendment proscribes federal conduct only, Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408 (1944); Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247, 7 Pet. 243, 247, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). The alleged wrongdoing in this case occurred under color of state law.

Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do.

[tpaine #30] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,

On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit.

tpaine #24 quoting from the 14th Amendment of 1868, leaving out the phrase "without due process of law." If this were the people's protection of the RKBA, any state could take your guns after establishing the process it deemed due for doing so. The RKBA would be the same as the right pertaining to all ordinary property.

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

To be sure, the 14th Amendment did nothing prior to 1868.

Of course, various rights were incorporated after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is as I said, and contrary to your ignorant blathering that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp. 813 (S.D. Cal. 1947)

History is clear that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common-law rights of the people against invasion by the Federal Government. For example, the Fourth Amendment provides that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated * * *."

The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a common-law right. Entich v. Carrington, 1765, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029; Boyd v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 616, 624-632, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 . Thus the Fourth Amendment did not create a new right, but merely gave a pre-existing common-law right constitutional protection from invasion by the Federal Government.

Accordingly, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not limit state or individual action, but only federal action. Twining v. New Jersey, 1908, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 ; Spies v. Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, 7 Pet. 243, 32 U.S. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 . As was said in Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408, 154 A.L.R. 982: "* * * for more than one hundred years * * * one of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit." Cf. Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 , L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 54; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 926.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

[tpaine] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over,

On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit.

tpaine #24 quoting from the 14th Amendment of 1868, leaving out the phrase "without due process of law." If this were the people's protection of the RKBA, any state could take your guns after establishing the process it deemed due for doing so. The RKBA would be the same as the right pertaining to all ordinary property.

It applies to States in it's words: ----

--- "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" ---

Guns are property...

To be sure, the 14th Amendment did nothing prior to 1868.

Of course, various rights were incorporated after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is as I said, and contrary to your ignorant blathering that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

The Bill of Rights has never applied to the States. It did not apply then, and it does not apply now.

The 14th Amendment provides in relevant part:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It does not apply the BoR to the States, it applies "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" against the States. What are the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as opposed to the priviliges and immunities of citizens of a member state of the United States?

By a process called incorporation, the Supreme Court has decided privileges and immunities are derived from being a citizen of the United States and incorporated them into the 14th Amendment. Those are applicable against the States via the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights.

Which explains:

Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016)

B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation

At the time of its adoption in 1871, the Bill of Rights - and, particularly, the individual liberties secured within it - did not apply against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833)(noting that the amendments found in the Bill of Rights "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"); Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-552 (1833)(same). Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain individual rights from interference by the States. And thereafter, the Supreme Court began using that Amendment's Due Process Clause to "incorporate" a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten Amendments against the States, "initiating what has been called a process of 'selective incorporation,' i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first [ten] Amendments." McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742, 763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases).

The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights that are "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968)(referring to those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions")(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated.

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

Poor sad yukon/tpaine in the ass, trapped like the rat that he is, has nothing better do than create and to address his pathetic non-responsive posts to very long non-existent handles which will not show up in any ping list.

Future responses have been consolidated onto a single thread. See:

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46857&Disp=77#C77

For examples of his psychosis using non-existent handles, see:

#76. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#75)

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:37:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

#24. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#23)

Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam.

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:40:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

#34. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#33)

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

#163. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#162)

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:43:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

#125. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#124)

Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution.

Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court?

Because that's what socialists do?

tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:45:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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