Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

Wrong.

‘The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.


After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.


By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.’

Why We Have Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine what the Constitution means is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Supreme Court invalidate laws and measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, as codified by the people in Articles III and VI.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Voices in His Head...There is someone in his head but its not him


Idaho Republican: Bibles in public schools ruled constitutional by ‘little Supreme Court in my head’
The Idaho House of Representatives has passed legislation allowing references to the Bible in public schools in direct contradiction to the state constitution.

 

[Faun]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

Oh? What about the 13th Amendment limits their jurisdiction? And where in the 13th Amendment does it abolish Article 3, Section 2, which establishes their jurisdiction to "all cases" arising under the Constitution?

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

Oh? What about the 13th Amendment limits their jurisdiction? And where in the 13th Amendment does it abolish Article 3, Section 2, which establishes their jurisdiction to "all cases" arising under the Constitution?

My error. I meant the Eleventh Amendment. Sorry about that.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

Wrong.

‘The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.


After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.


By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.’

Why We Have Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine what the Constitution means is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Supreme Court invalidate laws and measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, as codified by the people in Articles III and VI.

I am not making an argument against judicial review. Only the jurisdictional limites under Article III and the Eleventh Amendment. We have judicial review not because of what you stated, but because of Sir Coke, and it dates to the early 1600s. We have a lot of things in the Constitution because of Coke.

 

[Skylar]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

 

[Skylar]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

They have jurisdiction limited by Congress. Congress can explicitly forbid them from ruling on particular issues. Its an interesting power of Congress that is rarely if ever exercised.

And as far as the cases the Supreme Court has taken.....hasn't been.

What the 11th amendment does is prevent the citizen of one state (say, South Carolina) from suing the government of another State (say, Georgia). Since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States anyway at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment, issues of rights of individual citizens were largely moot.

This changed, of course, with the passage of the 14th amendment which radically changed the relationship of the Federal Government to the States. Issues of Sovereign Immunity of the States, for example, were rendered far less than absolute with section 5 of the 14th amendment. And eventually the courts recognized that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States....though they've done so piece meal, via the process of Selective Incorporation.

As the introductory statements of the 14th amendment of both Howard and Bingham demonstrate, it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the State. They said so explicitly, going on to read the amendments one at a time just so folks knew what they were talking about. Alas, the Slaughter House cases delayed that intent by about 40 years.

Issues of monetary damages against States are still largely intact and have been since Chisholm v. Georgia, but issues of rights of individuals violated by States have been protected in practice starting around 1905 or so. Sovereign Immunity doesn't protect States from claims of the abrogation of rights. Issues of monetary damages is still rather solid, though there are specific instances related to the 14th amendment where these too are set aside.

 

[Skylar]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

Wrong.

‘The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.


After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.


By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.’

Why We Have Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to determine what the Constitution means is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

It was the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation that the Supreme Court invalidate laws and measures inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, as codified by the people in Articles III and VI.

I am not making an argument against judicial review. Only the jurisdictional limites under Article III and the Eleventh Amendment. We have judicial review not because of what you stated, but because of Sir Coke, and it dates to the early 1600s. We have a lot of things in the Constitution because of Coke.

The founders leaned hard on the English legal tradition when crafting the constitution. But as the debates in constitutional convention, the first few sessions of congress (specifically around the first Naturalization Act) and the Federalist Papers demonstrate, not exclusively. A fair portion of it they made up on the fly.

'Judicial Review' as a concept (though not cited as Judicial Review) were most directly laid out in Federalist Paper 78. It used its own internal logic which Hamilton laid out thoroughly and elegantly. The foundation of 'Judicial Review' in Federalist 78 was three fold.

1) The absurdity of congress being the arbiter of the constitutionality of their own laws.

2) The role of the judiciary in gleaning the meaning of the laws they were adjudicating. With the constitution being fundamental law that they would be tasked with interpreting.

3) The court's authority to determine which of two conflicting laws would be enacted in exclusion of the other. In the case of congressional statutes that were in conflict with the fundamental law of the constitution....the courts were expected to enact the constitution in exclusion of the congressional statute.

Of those three arguments, only the first was argued by Sir Coke; a rejection of parlimentary sovereignty. Hamilton didn't explicitly say this, but strongly insinuated it with statements like this:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.

Which reaches the same general conclusion as Sir Coke in terms of a check on the law making branch of government......but uses a completely different logic. Coke put 'common law above parliament'. While Hamilton put the will of their congressional constituents above the will of the their representatives. With the courts designed to an intermediary body between the legislature and the people.

Though as a general rule, if the Founders aren't offering their own definitions or legal logic for a principle.....they're tapping English common law. Their definition of 'natural born' for example. They didn't define it.....because they didn't invent it. They borrowed it.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was enumerated in Article III, and further defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrowed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the state's ratifying conventions thought that Article III was too broad and conflicted with the limited powers the states gave the federal government. The Supreme Court's power was further limited with the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case that was not under its jurisdiction. Most federal questions were left to the state courts to adjudicate, not the Supreme Court or district courts.

The Supreme Court was not designed to protect the rights of the citizens of the states. The Supreme Court was never intended to be beholden to the majority because the Supreme Court was never intended to have that type of jurisdiction. The reason the justices are not elected is because the court was not designed to have jurisdiction over the states or individuals within a state. If the court were designed to have jurisdiction over the states or individuals within a state, the justices would have been elected. The concept that the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction over the citizens or the type of state laws that the citizens created via their state representatives violates the representative form of government created. The Supreme Court was not given the power over states or citizens of the states because they are not elected, thus putting the Supreme Court outside the boundaries of being representative of the people or the states.

Article III and Article VI were written four years before the Bill of Rights and there were no rights in the Constitution, so a state law found to be in violation of a citizens fundamental rights was not a concept under either article. Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there was no federal power over a state violating a citizen’s right.

There is nothing in the plain language or intent of Article III or Article VI that would grant the Supreme Court,or any federal court, original or subject matter jurisdiction regarding a state law outside of conflicting with Article I, Section 8.

 

[Skylar]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was enumerated in Article III, and further defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrowed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the state's ratifying conventions thought that Article III was too broad and conflicted with the limited powers the states gave the federal government. The Supreme Court's power was further limited with the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case that was not under its jurisdiction. Most federal questions were left to the state courts to adjudicate, not the Supreme Court or district courts.

And Article III includes 'all cases that arise under the Constitution'. A case involving the violation of rights protected by the constitution would most definitely be a case 'arising under the constitution'.

And there's nothing in the 11th amendment that would limit the court's ability to hear a case about the violation of rights by the States...if the person claiming that violation of rights was a resident of that State.

Which they are in virtually every Supreme Court case involving rights.

This issue was essentially irrelevant when the 11th was passed. At that time the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. So the States could violate the rights of its citizens to its heart's content with no accountability (See Barron v. Baltimore). After the 14th amendment (long after), violations of rights by the States could be heard by the courts. As the Bill of Rights (well, most of it) was applied to the States through the doctrine of selective incorporation.

Which is exactly what the writers of the 14th intended....sans the 'selective incorporation' part.

The Supreme Court was not designed to protect the rights of the citizens of the states. The Supreme Court was never intended to be beholden to the majority because the Supreme Court was never intended to have that type of jurisdiction.

That's why we have amendments. The very issues of jurisdiction you're talking about were one of the primary reason the 14th was created. With the chief proponents of the 14th amendment citing the Federal Government's lack of jurisdiction over State violations of individual rights as one of the primary reasons for the 14th's necessity: to extend federal jurisdiction to State violation of rights.

Bingham even cited the Barron v. Baltimore case specifically as an example of how the Federal government lacked that jurisdiction....and how state citizens couldn't seek remedy from State violations of rights. Bingham presented this case as evidence that that needed to be changed by the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what happened.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

They have jurisdiction limited by Congress. Congress can explicitly forbid them from ruling on particular issues. Its an interesting power of Congress that is rarely if ever exercised.

And as far as the cases the Supreme Court has taken.....hasn't been.

What the 11th amendment does is prevent the citizen of one state (say, South Carolina) from suing the government of another State (say, Georgia). Since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States anyway at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment, issues of rights of individual citizens were largely moot.

This changed, of course, with the passage of the 14th amendment which radically changed the relationship of the Federal Government to the States. Issues of Sovereign Immunity of the States, for example, were rendered far less than absolute with section 5 of the 14th amendment. And eventually the courts recognized that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States....though they've done so piece meal, via the process of Selective Incorporation.

As the introductory statements of the 14th amendment of both Howard and Bingham demonstrate, it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the State. They said so explicitly, going on to read the amendments one at a time just so folks knew what they were talking about. Alas, the Slaughter House cases delayed that intent by about 40 years.

Issues of monetary damages against States are still largely intact and have been since Chisholm v. Georgia, but issues of rights of individuals violated by States have been protected in practice starting around 1905 or so. Sovereign Immunity doesn't protect States from claims of the abrogation of rights. Issues of monetary damages is still rather solid, though there are specific instances related to the 14th amendment where these too are set aside.

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

They have jurisdiction limited by Congress. Congress can explicitly forbid them from ruling on particular issues. Its an interesting power of Congress that is rarely if ever exercised.

And as far as the cases the Supreme Court has taken.....hasn't been.

What the 11th amendment does is prevent the citizen of one state (say, South Carolina) from suing the government of another State (say, Georgia). Since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States anyway at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment, issues of rights of individual citizens were largely moot.

This changed, of course, with the passage of the 14th amendment which radically changed the relationship of the Federal Government to the States. Issues of Sovereign Immunity of the States, for example, were rendered far less than absolute with section 5 of the 14th amendment. And eventually the courts recognized that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States....though they've done so piece meal, via the process of Selective Incorporation.

As the introductory statements of the 14th amendment of both Howard and Bingham demonstrate, it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the State. They said so explicitly, going on to read the amendments one at a time just so folks knew what they were talking about. Alas, the Slaughter House cases delayed that intent by about 40 years.

Issues of monetary damages against States are still largely intact and have been since Chisholm v. Georgia, but issues of rights of individuals violated by States have been protected in practice starting around 1905 or so. Sovereign Immunity doesn't protect States from claims of the abrogation of rights. Issues of monetary damages is still rather solid, though there are specific instances related to the 14th amendment where these too are set aside.

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution grants them them the power to rule on all cases "arising under this Constitution."

They have a limited jurisdiction. They tried that and after the ruling, within three days the congress was already crafting the Thirteenth Amendment to rein them in. Their jurisdiction was understood to be limited to Article I, Section 8 to prevent the states from interfering with their powers under Article I, Section 8.

They have jurisdiction limited by Congress. Congress can explicitly forbid them from ruling on particular issues. Its an interesting power of Congress that is rarely if ever exercised.

And as far as the cases the Supreme Court has taken.....hasn't been.

What the 11th amendment does is prevent the citizen of one state (say, South Carolina) from suing the government of another State (say, Georgia). Since the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States anyway at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment, issues of rights of individual citizens were largely moot.

This changed, of course, with the passage of the 14th amendment which radically changed the relationship of the Federal Government to the States. Issues of Sovereign Immunity of the States, for example, were rendered far less than absolute with section 5 of the 14th amendment. And eventually the courts recognized that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States....though they've done so piece meal, via the process of Selective Incorporation.

As the introductory statements of the 14th amendment of both Howard and Bingham demonstrate, it was the intent of the 14th amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the State. They said so explicitly, going on to read the amendments one at a time just so folks knew what they were talking about. Alas, the Slaughter House cases delayed that intent by about 40 years.

Issues of monetary damages against States are still largely intact and have been since Chisholm v. Georgia, but issues of rights of individuals violated by States have been protected in practice starting around 1905 or so. Sovereign Immunity doesn't protect States from claims of the abrogation of rights. Issues of monetary damages is still rather solid, though there are specific instances related to the 14th amendment where these too are set aside.

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was enumerated in Article III, and further defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrowed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the state's ratifying conventions thought that Article III was too broad and conflicted with the limited powers the states gave the federal government. The Supreme Court's power was further limited with the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case that was not under its jurisdiction. Most federal questions were left to the state courts to adjudicate, not the Supreme Court or district courts.

The Supreme Court was not designed to protect the rights of the citizens of the states. The Supreme Court was never intended to be beholden to the majority because the Supreme Court was never intended to have that type of jurisdiction. The reason the justices are not elected is because the court was not designed to have jurisdiction over the states or individuals within a state. If the court were designed to have jurisdiction over the states or individuals within a state, the justices would have been elected. The concept that the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction over the citizens or the type of state laws that the citizens created via their state representatives violates the representative form of government created. The Supreme Court was not given the power over states or citizens of the states because they are not elected, thus putting the Supreme Court outside the boundaries of being representative of the people or the states.

Article III and Article VI were written four years before the Bill of Rights and there were no rights in the Constitution, so a state law found to be in violation of a citizens fundamental rights was not a concept under either article. Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there was no federal power over a state violating a citizen’s right.

There is nothing in the plain language or intent of Article III or Article VI that would grant the Supreme Court,or any federal court, original or subject matter jurisdiction regarding a state law outside of conflicting with Article I, Section 8.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was enumerated in Article III, and further defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrowed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the state's ratifying conventions thought that Article III was too broad and conflicted with the limited powers the states gave the federal government. The Supreme Court's power was further limited with the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case that was not under its jurisdiction. Most federal questions were left to the state courts to adjudicate, not the Supreme Court or district courts.

And Article III includes 'all cases that arise under the Constitution'. A case involving the violation of rights protected by the constitution would most definitely be a case 'arising under the constitution'.

And there's nothing in the 11th amendment that would limit the court's ability to hear a case about the violation of rights by the States...if the person claiming that violation of rights was a resident of that State.

Which they are in virtually every Supreme Court case involving rights.

This issue was essentially irrelevant when the 11th was passed. At that time the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. So the States could violate the rights of its citizens to its heart's content with no accountability (See Barron v. Baltimore). After the 14th amendment (long after), violations of rights by the States could be heard by the courts. As the Bill of Rights (well, most of it) was applied to the States through the doctrine of selective incorporation.

Which is exactly what the writers of the 14th intended....sans the 'selective incorporation' part.

The Supreme Court was not designed to protect the rights of the citizens of the states. The Supreme Court was never intended to be beholden to the majority because the Supreme Court was never intended to have that type of jurisdiction.

That's why we have amendments. The very issues of jurisdiction you're talking about were one of the primary reason the 14th was created. With the chief proponents of the 14th amendment citing the Federal Government's lack of jurisdiction over State violations of individual rights as one of the primary reasons for the 14th's necessity: to extend federal jurisdiction to State violation of rights.

Bingham even cited the Barron v. Baltimore case specifically as an example of how the Federal government lacked that jurisdiction....and how state citizens couldn't seek remedy from State violations of rights. Bingham presented this case as evidence that that needed to be changed by the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what happened.

All cases involving rights were left to the states by the Supreme Court from the early eighteenth century to the start of the twentieth century.

 

[Skylar]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

 

[Skylar]

There is no article III power or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to take ninety precent of the rulings they do. There is no Article VI power granted to the Supreme Court.

Most of the cases the court takes up are about individual rights. 'All cases that arise under the constitution' about covers it.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was enumerated in Article III, and further defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was narrowed in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because the state's ratifying conventions thought that Article III was too broad and conflicted with the limited powers the states gave the federal government. The Supreme Court's power was further limited with the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case that was not under its jurisdiction. Most federal questions were left to the state courts to adjudicate, not the Supreme Court or district courts.

And Article III includes 'all cases that arise under the Constitution'. A case involving the violation of rights protected by the constitution would most definitely be a case 'arising under the constitution'.

And there's nothing in the 11th amendment that would limit the court's ability to hear a case about the violation of rights by the States...if the person claiming that violation of rights was a resident of that State.

Which they are in virtually every Supreme Court case involving rights.

This issue was essentially irrelevant when the 11th was passed. At that time the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. So the States could violate the rights of its citizens to its heart's content with no accountability (See Barron v. Baltimore). After the 14th amendment (long after), violations of rights by the States could be heard by the courts. As the Bill of Rights (well, most of it) was applied to the States through the doctrine of selective incorporation.

Which is exactly what the writers of the 14th intended....sans the 'selective incorporation' part.

The Supreme Court was not designed to protect the rights of the citizens of the states. The Supreme Court was never intended to be beholden to the majority because the Supreme Court was never intended to have that type of jurisdiction.

That's why we have amendments. The very issues of jurisdiction you're talking about were one of the primary reason the 14th was created. With the chief proponents of the 14th amendment citing the Federal Government's lack of jurisdiction over State violations of individual rights as one of the primary reasons for the 14th's necessity: to extend federal jurisdiction to State violation of rights.

Bingham even cited the Barron v. Baltimore case specifically as an example of how the Federal government lacked that jurisdiction....and how state citizens couldn't seek remedy from State violations of rights. Bingham presented this case as evidence that that needed to be changed by the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what happened.

All cases involving rights were left to the states by the Supreme Court from the early eighteenth century to the start of the twentieth century.

As I noted with the Slaughter House cases. Generally recognized as a pretty awful ruling by the court.

With both Bingham and Howard making it ludicriously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to the States' violation of rights was the intent of the 14th. Even going so far as to read the amendments, one at a time, as what they intended to hold the States to.

Facts you don't dispute or deny. Facts that demonstrate what the intent of the 14th was. Intent the Slaughterhouse court ignored. And later courts didn't.

 

[Tennyson]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses only addressed criminal judicial proceedings.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment was revised several times before the final draft because it could have been interpreted to violate federalism.

You can quote Bingham and Howard if you want, but I will produce the records from the Congressional Globe in sequence of the debates regarding these two and what their intent was for the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the states. I will produce their extraneous speeches and writings that support my point of view. I will also produce congressional action after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that evidences my point of view. I will produce Supreme Court cases from a couple of years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment all the way to the twentieth century that supports my point of view. I will produce the records of the reconstruction Congress regarding the state's new constitutions that support my point of view.

The Slaughter House cases involved the privileges or immunities and that precedent has been left untouched regarding rights.

 

[Tennyson]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

Not in a federal court.

 

[Skylar]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses only addressed criminal judicial proceedings.

Show me where the 14th says this.

And as a matter of both intent AND historical fact, the 14th did extend federal jurisdiction to the States as it pertains to the violation of individual rights. You're arguing it shouldn't have. But lets be clear on the fact that it did.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment was revised several times before the final draft because it could have been interpreted to violate federalism.

It doesn't matter if the founders 'intended the Bill of Rights' to be applied to the States. They didn't intend for slavery to end or for women to vote either.

That's why we have amendments. And both the intent AND the results of the 14th amendment....was expansion of Federal Jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

You can quote Bingham and Howard if you want, but I will produce the records from the Congressional Globe in sequence of the debates regarding these two and what their intent was for the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the states. I will produce their extraneous speeches and writings that support my point of view. I will also produce congressional action after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that evidences my point of view. I will produce Supreme Court cases from a couple of years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment all the way to the twentieth century that supports my point of view. I will produce the records of the reconstruction Congress regarding the state's new constitutions that support my point of view.

Bingham quotes its is. Lets start with this one, offered during the closing arguments of the 14th amendment by the man who proposed the amendment itself:

".....many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, cruel and unusual punishments have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment"

-John Bingham
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866)



Making it beyond obvious that one of the primary purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend federal jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

The Slaughter House cases involved the privileges or immunities and that precedent has been left untouched regarding rights.

And the Slaughter House cases were explicitly contradicted by both Bingham and Howard. Who explicitly stated that it was the intent of the amendment to apply the BIll of Rights to the States.

 

[Tennyson]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses only addressed criminal judicial proceedings.

Show me where the 14th says this.

And as a matter of both intent AND historical fact, the 14th did extend federal jurisdiction to the States as it pertains to the violation of individual rights. You're arguing it shouldn't have. But lets be clear on the fact that it did.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment was revised several times before the final draft because it could have been interpreted to violate federalism.

It doesn't matter if the founders 'intended the Bill of Rights' to be applied to the States. They didn't intend for slavery to end or for women to vote either.

That's why we have amendments. And both the intent AND the results of the 14th amendment....was expansion of Federal Jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

You can quote Bingham and Howard if you want, but I will produce the records from the Congressional Globe in sequence of the debates regarding these two and what their intent was for the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the states. I will produce their extraneous speeches and writings that support my point of view. I will also produce congressional action after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that evidences my point of view. I will produce Supreme Court cases from a couple of years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment all the way to the twentieth century that supports my point of view. I will produce the records of the reconstruction Congress regarding the state's new constitutions that support my point of view.

Bingham quotes its is. Lets start with this one, offered during the closing arguments of the 14th amendment by the man who proposed the amendment itself:

".....many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, cruel and unusual punishments have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment"

-John Bingham
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866)



Making it beyond obvious that one of the primary purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend federal jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

The Slaughter House cases involved the privileges or immunities and that precedent has been left untouched regarding rights.

And the Slaughter House cases were explicitly contradicted by both Bingham and Howard. Who explicitly stated that it was the intent of the amendment to apply the BIll of Rights to the States.

Show me where the 14th says this.

And as a matter of both intent AND historical fact, the 14th did extend federal jurisdiction to the States as it pertains to the violation of individual rights. You're arguing it shouldn't have. But lets be clear on the fact that it did.

A good start would be for you to go to the Supreme Court and right before you walk in the door, look up and read what it says. That one sentence pretty much explains it all.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states other than criminal judicial proceedings by virtue of equal protection and procedural due process during a judicial proceeding. This was limited to only the freed slaves as well.

It doesn't matter if the founders 'intended the Bill of Rights' to be applied to the States. They didn't intend for slavery to end or for women to vote either.

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend on the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states and the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states until twentieth century judicial activism as no Congress or Supreme Court was aware of the concept of incorporating the Bill of Rights until the mid-twentieth century. Moreover, not one Supreme Court ruling regarding incorporation used a constitutional basis nor the author’s stated intent of the Fourteenth Amendment in their rulings.

Making it beyond obvious that one of the primary purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend federal jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

I am understanding what the purpose of a few out of context quotes from May 10, 1866 has on the aggregate of the debates, congressional actions, and Supreme Court rulings, especially that the intent that Bingham stated may times after May 6, 1866 that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights. And as I stated, and your snippets attest, the Bill of Rights was intended for the freed slaves. All the language and all the acts were limited to the freed slaves.

 

[Skylar]

The Eleventh Amendment was about state's power

And the 14th was about extending federal jurisdiction to the States when they violate constitutionally protected rights.

When Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), as decided, it was such an overreach and violation of the state's sovereign immunity from lawsuits unless they gave consent. The Eleventh Amendment contains limiting language on the Supreme Court regarding the states:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.​

This was such an egregious assault on state's rights, that the amendment was proposed two days after the ruling in Chisholm. The debates around the amendment were to prevent the federal government from suing a state without the state's consent. The way the congress intended this amendment to work regarding Article VI, was that a state cannot be sued without consent by the federal government, but the state officials or municipality that created the law could be sued. This was also based on the understanding that Article VI and Article III were not related regarding Supreme Court jurisdiction. This is also evidenced in the twentieth century with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ).

None of which would prevent a citizen that was living *within* a State from bringing a case against the same state for the violation of rights.

What prevented it at the time of the passage of the 11th amendment was the fact the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the relationship very much between the states and the federal government. That was created by twentieth century activist courts.

And by 'activists courts', you mean whose who applied the Bill of Rights to the States as the writers of the 14th explicitly stated was their intention with the amendment?

Shall I quote Howard? Shall I quote Bingham? They are ludicrously clear that extending federal jurisdiction to States violating the rights of citizens was their intent. And even read the amendments one at a time as what they intended to hold the States to.

The Slaughterhouse court ignored this. Later courts didn't.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses only addressed criminal judicial proceedings.

Show me where the 14th says this.

And as a matter of both intent AND historical fact, the 14th did extend federal jurisdiction to the States as it pertains to the violation of individual rights. You're arguing it shouldn't have. But lets be clear on the fact that it did.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states, and the Fourteenth Amendment was revised several times before the final draft because it could have been interpreted to violate federalism.

It doesn't matter if the founders 'intended the Bill of Rights' to be applied to the States. They didn't intend for slavery to end or for women to vote either.

That's why we have amendments. And both the intent AND the results of the 14th amendment....was expansion of Federal Jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

You can quote Bingham and Howard if you want, but I will produce the records from the Congressional Globe in sequence of the debates regarding these two and what their intent was for the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the states. I will produce their extraneous speeches and writings that support my point of view. I will also produce congressional action after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that evidences my point of view. I will produce Supreme Court cases from a couple of years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment all the way to the twentieth century that supports my point of view. I will produce the records of the reconstruction Congress regarding the state's new constitutions that support my point of view.

Bingham quotes its is. Lets start with this one, offered during the closing arguments of the 14th amendment by the man who proposed the amendment itself:

".....many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, cruel and unusual punishments have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment"

-John Bingham
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866)



Making it beyond obvious that one of the primary purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend federal jurisdiction to the States in the protection of rights.

The Slaughter House cases involved the privileges or immunities and that precedent has been left untouched regarding rights.

And the Slaughter House cases were explicitly contradicted by both Bingham and Howard. Who explicitly stated that it was the intent of the amendment to apply the BIll of Rights to the States.

Show me where the 14th says this.

And as a matter of both intent AND historical fact, the 14th did extend federal jurisdiction to the States as it pertains to the violation of individual rights. You're arguing it shouldn't have. But lets be clear on the fact that it did.

A good start would be for you to go to the Supreme Court and right before you walk in the door, look up and read what it says. That one sentence pretty much explains it all.

So.....you could find now where in the 14th amendment where it states that its due process and equal protection clauses only addressed criminal judicial proceedings.

Well that was easy.

Remember, you may disagree with the extension of federal jurisdiction under the 14th amendment. But your disapproval doesn't change the fact that the jurisdiction was extended by the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend federal jurisdiction into the states other than criminal judicial proceedings by virtue of equal protection and procedural due process during a judicial proceeding. This was limited to only the freed slaves as well.

Except that it wasn't. The only reference to the word 'slave' in the entire 14th amendment was in section 4...rejecting any compensation for lost slaves.

Here's the entirety of Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Show us anywhere where it indicates that it only applies to freed slaves. Show us anywhere where it indicates that the due process and equal protection clauses address only criminal judicial proceedings.

Just highlight it for us.

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend on the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states and the Bill of Rights was not applied to the states until twentieth century judicial activism as no Congress or Supreme Court was aware of the concept of incorporating the Bill of Rights until the mid-twentieth century. Moreover, not one Supreme Court ruling regarding incorporation used a constitutional basis nor the author’s stated intent of the Fourteenth Amendment in their rulings.

Says you. Here's the writer of Section 1, the very section we're talking about.....arguing that the 14th should *explicitly* be applied to States. (bold added for emphasis)

".....many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, cruel and unusual punishments have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment"

-John Bingham
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866)


For crying out loud, Bingham argued that the 14th would overturn Barron v. Baltimore, a case where the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, no less than 13 times in one debate. He read off the amendments 1 by 1 as what would be applied to the States.

But he *didn't* mean to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

That's really what you're gonna go with?

I am understanding what the purpose of a few out of context quotes from May 10, 1866 has on the aggregate of the debates, congressional actions, and Supreme Court rulings, especially that the intent that Bingham stated may times after May 6, 1866 that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights. And as I stated, and your snippets attest, the Bill of Rights was intended for the freed slaves. All the language and all the acts were limited to the freed slaves.

Put the statement in context for us. I offered 2 full paragraphs where Bingham makes his argument explicitly and in detail talking about the citizen being protected by national law from unconstitutional State laws.

You say 'uh-uh'.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and while I'm waiting I thought I'd beat a dead horse and reaffirm again what one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was:


"They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

-Senator Jacob Howard


But the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Really?

And that the privileges and immunities should have included the Bill of Rights.....I once again offer you Senator Howard:


"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments...."

-Senator Jacob Howard


Who goes through a lists them. One amendment at time.

But the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Really?

The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

But the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States?

Again, really? And just to remove any possible doubt that it was in fact the Bill of Rights that Bingham intended to apply to the States as part of the first section of the 14th amendment:


"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourtheeth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from the citizen of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows.

Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871


But Bingham didn't intend the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States?

Are you fucking serious?