Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 03-12-2007, 09:28 PM

bear,
The Constitution isn't a document about the states, it's a *federal* document.
Before the 14th amendement, citizens generally thought of themselves as citizens of say, New York, or Mass., or Georgia, etc. People weren't at that time accustomed to thinking of themselves part of a collective whole of states.

The relevant history for this is that when the Constution was ratified, our beginning nation was experiencing a number of problems. You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts. Two main factions formed around how to resolve some of these issues: the federalist and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central judiciary, a powerful court system, and they were concerned about our nation being governed by a majority. The anti-federalists wanted a weak central government, a less powerful court system, and they were concerned that states rights would be lost in the shuffle.

To resolve most of this, the two factions agreed that they would form a system of government with each branch controlling different aspects. So they oulined the executive branch and the legislative branch (as an example of how these compromises played out, we have a Congress comprised of a House of Reps where the population determines the members in conjunction with a Senate where each state has equal representation. I can't remember the respective plans each faction introduced, but if you google "connectcut plan" I think that's the one they reached, or it's one of the three and you'll be able to read about the other two.). Initially, the judicial branch was given the least amount of detail and this leads some scholars to believe that it was supposed to be least powerful branch and others to suspect that by not nailing down the details, it gave the federalists a springboard to add on to the judicial branch's power later on.

The Bill of Rights was a concession to the anti-federalists' fear of a central federal government over-running states' abilities to govern their citizens. It's written as a check against the federal government and the 10th amendment would actually support my points, not detract from them.

I'm not sure what kind of split you thought I was making about whether the Constitution is written for the feds or the states, but all the Constitution was about was how the federal government was going to operate. The Bill of Rights was introduced to ensure that the feds couldn't strip certain rights from the states.

In this context, that means that Congress is restricted from passing laws outlawing guns from New York residents. But it never meant that New York could was limited in it's ability to pass laws barring it's own residents owning guns. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights were applied to individual members in each state protecting them from their own state governments and laws.

And I wrote that we *think* it means that all of the Bill of Rights apply, when in fact the USSC has only ruled on some of them.

In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound.

Have you read your state consitution recently?
Why do you think California and Oregon constitutions guarantee their citizens the right to free speech and protections against unlawful searches and seizures (both ratified about a hundred years after the BoR were already in place)? I don't know other states off-hand, but I would be surprised to find that it does not mention rights very similar (or same) to those mentioned in the BoR.

03-12-2007, 09:28 PM	#41 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	bear, The Constitution isn't a document about the states, it's a federal document. Before the 14th amendement, citizens generally thought of themselves as citizens of say, New York, or Mass., or Georgia, etc. People weren't at that time accustomed to thinking of themselves part of a collective whole of states. The relevant history for this is that when the Constution was ratified, our beginning nation was experiencing a number of problems. You probably already know that everyone was concerned over having too strong of a central government and court system, but without a unified system the states were having problems paying back their debts. Two main factions formed around how to resolve some of these issues: the federalist and the anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central judiciary, a powerful court system, and they were concerned about our nation being governed by a majority. The anti-federalists wanted a weak central government, a less powerful court system, and they were concerned that states rights would be lost in the shuffle. To resolve most of this, the two factions agreed that they would form a system of government with each branch controlling different aspects. So they oulined the executive branch and the legislative branch (as an example of how these compromises played out, we have a Congress comprised of a House of Reps where the population determines the members in conjunction with a Senate where each state has equal representation. I can't remember the respective plans each faction introduced, but if you google "connectcut plan" I think that's the one they reached, or it's one of the three and you'll be able to read about the other two.). Initially, the judicial branch was given the least amount of detail and this leads some scholars to believe that it was supposed to be least powerful branch and others to suspect that by not nailing down the details, it gave the federalists a springboard to add on to the judicial branch's power later on. The Bill of Rights was a concession to the anti-federalists' fear of a central federal government over-running states' abilities to govern their citizens. It's written as a check against the federal government and the 10th amendment would actually support my points, not detract from them. I'm not sure what kind of split you thought I was making about whether the Constitution is written for the feds or the states, but all the Constitution was about was how the federal government was going to operate. The Bill of Rights was introduced to ensure that the feds couldn't strip certain rights from the states. In this context, that means that Congress is restricted from passing laws outlawing guns from New York residents. But it never meant that New York could was limited in it's ability to pass laws barring it's own residents owning guns. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Bill of Rights were applied to individual members in each state protecting them from their own state governments and laws. And I wrote that we think it means that all of the Bill of Rights apply, when in fact the USSC has only ruled on some of them. In any case, as written, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to cities such as DC. It's not a state. The minority opinion is almost certainly legally correct. I'm not on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you definatively how they would rule, but her logic is sound. Have you read your state consitution recently? Why do you think California and Oregon constitutions guarantee their citizens the right to free speech and protections against unlawful searches and seizures (both ratified about a hundred years after the BoR were already in place)? I don't know other states off-hand, but I would be surprised to find that it does not mention rights very similar (or same) to those mentioned in the BoR. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 03-12-2007 at 09:30 PM..