Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Dk, I am assuming that there was a reinterpretation of the constitution when SCOTUS superceded state law on rights issues. That premise may be faulty and why I hope someone here is able to address my question.
|
well, to my knowledge (as limited as it is), the champion of state law being superceded by the constitution is Justice Hugo Black. He stipulated this as an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment. there are many decisions that are adjudicated for this, as listed below.
Freedom of Speech
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Freedom of the Press
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Assistance of Counsel (Capital Criminal Cases)
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Freedom of Assembly
DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)
Free Exercise of Religion
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Establishment of Religion
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Public Trial
In re Oliver (1948)
Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Wolf v. Colorado (1949): The Court held that although the Fourth Amendment applied to the states, the exclusionary rule (unconstitionally obtained evidence cannot be used at trial), which the Court had been held to be an essential corollary to the Fourth Amendment, did not. The Court later incorporated the exclusionary rule in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
Freedom of Association
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958)
Exclusionary Rule
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Robinson v. California (1962)
Assistance of Counsel (All Felony Cases)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Right Against Self-Incrimination
Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses
Pointer v. Texas (1965)
Miranda Warning
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Court held that the Miranda Warning was an essential corollary to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel.
Right to Speedy Trial
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witness Testimony
Washington v. Texas (1967)
Trial by Jury
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968): The Court held that in state criminal proceedings, where a person could be sentenced to a significant time in prison, he or she had a right to a trial by jury.
Right Against Double Jeopardy
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Right to Notice of Accusation
Rabe v. Washington (1972)
Right to Counsel (Imprisonable Misdemeanor Cases)
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
Right to Unanimous Jury Verdict
Burch v. Louisiana (1979): The Court has never incorporated the Sixth Amendment's implicit guarantee that convictions be obtained only from unanimous twelve-member juries, but in Burch, the Justices did hold that when as few as six jurors are empanelled, their verdict must be unanimous.
Unless you're looking at something different, my guess is that any constitutionally protected 'right' supercedes any state law that would infringe upon it.