Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
DK can you elaborate a little bit, I can't follow. Thanks.
|
any specific part?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smooth
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.
|
while paying back debts was a large part of the issue, the larger issue was about the stability of a unified standing army to safeguard ALL of the states. Without it, Massachussetts could be invaded and New York might not jump in to help defend it. A standing army would remove that issue, yet the fears of a central government and military were fresh in the minds of everyone, thus the constitution/Bill of Rights to ensure that the new central government had limited powers and KNEW that there were areas they were not allowed to touch.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smooth
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.
|
The constitution was ratified in 1789, the BoR ratified in 1791. In 1790, D.C. became a federal district. Now, if you are trying to follow the 'logic' of the dissenting opinion, saying that the 14th doesn't apply to the citizens of D.C. because it is a federal district and not a state, you're saying that any state could deny a D.C. citizen of any rights, if outside of D.C.. Does the state of Virginia have the authority or power to arrest a D.C. citizen without charge and then detain them indefinitely without counsel?