The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

 

[Nutz]

It is pretty simple...if the Bill of Rights apply to the people, then no state can make a law to abridge that right.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I believe the intention of the ratification in 1868 was to show that people are in fact, not property. So, no.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Lol.... this is gonna be fun..... lol....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

 

[Nutz]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is jibberish....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is pretty simple...if the Bill of Rights apply to the people, then no state can make a law to abridge that right.

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall unanimously disagreed with your assumption. This is still in the age of the *Founders. Evidence shows that some people back then agreed with you, but the Court in an important case disagreed.

so in effect, nothing is as simple as you would have people believe

 

[Nutz]

It is pretty simple...if the Bill of Rights apply to the people, then no state can make a law to abridge that right.

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall unanimously disagreed with your assumption. This is still in the age of the *Founders. Evidence shows that ome people back then agreed with you, but the Court in an important case disagreed.

Case?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe the intention of the ratification in 1868 was to show that people are in fact, not property. So, no.

You believe the 14th amendment was only about slaves and people as property?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

Supreme Court cases are nonsense? If you believe that why would you believe anything based on what the Court has ruled?

There were these arguments you are denying and the US Supreme Court was asked to rule. Is it more important to you to deal with facts or with feelings?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is jibberish....

Of course information and educated statements based on fact sound like gibberish to some people. It's the human condition. It's why in my opinion, we have the State Governments and the Congress that we have today

 

[Nutz]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

Supreme Court cases are nonsense? If you believe that why would you believe anything based on what the Court has ruled?

There were these arguments you are denying and the US Supreme Court was asked to rule. Is it more important to you to deal with facts or with feelings?

Case?

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is glorious. Because I have a number of asswipes on ignore, and most of those asswipes are avowed racists, I only see your responses, Dante, but not their drivel . Yes, I think this thread is gonna get a lot o' swing!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I believe the intention of the ratification in 1868 was to show that people are in fact, not property. So, no.

You believe the 14th amendment was only about slaves and people as property?

Clearly not. But you asked several vague questions instead of making one cogent point. I took it as does the 14th amendment allow for states to abridge property rights. The answer is no. As the 14th is explicit.

Most litigation surrounding 14 is for said rights in that regard. Brown vs. Board, etc....not whether the state could take property without compensation.

 

[Nutz]

This is glorious. Because I have a number of asswipes on ignore, and most of those asswipes are avowed racists, I only see your responses, Dante, but not their drivel . Yes, I think this thread is gonna get a lot o' swing!

This is glorious. Because I have a number of asswipes on ignore, and most of those asswipes are avowed racists, I only see your responses, Dante, but not their drivel . Yes, I think this thread is gonna get a lot o' swing!

German...hate gene. In full swing...see how negative they are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Nutz]

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and States Rights

Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for the Bill of Rights to NOT apply to the states? If yes, I wonder if you are principled enough to argue that the *Founders intended for the states to be able to take private property for public use, without just compensation, if they so chose?

Justice Hugo Black:

Dissent

BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.
Adamson v. California LII Legal Information Institute
​

referencing:

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore ()

• Syllabus
• Opinion, Marshall

Syllabus​

Barron v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore LII Legal Information Institute

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Dissenting opinion? Make your point!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe the intention of the ratification in 1868 was to show that people are in fact, not property. So, no.

You believe the 14th amendment was only about slaves and people as property?

Clearly not. But you asked several vague questions instead of making one cogent point. I took it as does the 14th amendment allow for states to abridge property rights. The answer is no. As the 14th is explicit.

Most litigation surrounding 14 is for said rights in that regard. Brown vs. Board, etc....not whether the state could take property without compensation.

not really. what was asked was:
Did the *Founders (*meaning framers and ratifiers of US Constitution), intend for an individual state to take property without compensation.?

you disagree that they did?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the the framers and backers of the 14th Amendment intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to the state governments? If yes, how do you use old states rights arguments, which were used pre the 14th amendment, to argue that the rules of pre 14th should apply to states rights today? Do you ignore the 14th or try to parse it in ways that fit the bill of particulars you are selling?

There is no argument, no state can infringe upon the rights granted upon them by the Constitution of the United Stats. If you want to take this to another argument, please do...but just make your point without the nonsense

Supreme Court cases are nonsense? If you believe that why would you believe anything based on what the Court has ruled?

There were these arguments you are denying and the US Supreme Court was asked to rule. Is it more important to you to deal with facts or with feelings?

Case?

post #17