The Bill of Rights is not lawfully enforceable upon the states by the federal government

I was about to post my own fully documented research on this subject but decided instead to post the following article, which is more compact and less tedious, but accurate in its overall conclusions!
See: The Incorporation Doctrine is a Legal Fiction . . A Century-Old Sin that Maximized Federal Power

The article begins:

“The Incorporation Doctrine is the process of federal courts to apply various provisions of the federal Bill of Rights against the states.”

“It is commonly believed that this practice has a sound constitutional basis and protects American liberty. I dispute both claims.”

The author, Mr. Menger, is absolutely spot on, and the historical facts and documentation, which I have personally researched on my own and independently, confirms this.


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

1 Like

A good starting point for those interested in the subject of the thread is to review the stated intentions for which the first ten amendments were added to the constitution and are found in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.

Additional evidence is James Madison, speaking with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and confirming their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

The bottom line is, the very intentions and purpose for the first ten amendments being added to our federal constitution was to restrict the newly created federal government, and are not lawfully enforceable upon the states by the federal government!


What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

1 Like


Suppose your state enacts a gun ban. According to you

You have no right to bear arms. Is this correct?

From a strict constitutional perspective yes. The constitution guarantees the feds can’t abrogate that right. But at the same time it enshrines that right as fundamental and god given, which led the courts to incorporate it to the states. That works for me. But is strictly speaking, not correct constitutional interpretation. My take on it anyway.

The constitutional authors had to sell this constitution to to every colony, they could do nothing that displeased those states or usurped their power and still get it ratified.

1 Like

And that is the very reason for which the first ten amendments were adopted ___ to provide constitutional protection confirming the federal government would keep its nose out of those ” . . . objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist No. 45.

The problem I see in the Court lying about the true meaning of our Constitution, as it did with its notion of “incorporating the Bill of Rights” and making them enforceable upon the states by the federal government is, the court must then continue with more and more lies to keep the original lie alive and in the process we no longer have a representative “Republican Form of Government” as guaranteed by our constitution, where elected members of Congress have the exclusive power to enact legislation, but we devolve into an oppressive system in which the whims and fancies of an un-elected body imposes its will upon the states and people therein as the “rule of law”.


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

1 Like


Hmmmm…this seems like picking and chosing. Shouldn’t it be just one way or the other?

Same. You seem to agree the rights you want have some veneer of constitutional protection, but no similiar allowance for, say, the 9th? Is this correct?

And where is your link confirming and supporting your insulting assertion?


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

No link. Just my ‘insulting’ interpretation of what you claim.

Again: you seem to dismiss the federal enforcement of the bill of rights, yet simultaneously want it’s protection for the rights that you favor; i.e the 2nd.

Is this correct?

I would imagine he would want protection of firearm ownership in his state constitution as well as the federal one.

So, you have no evidence of me confirming what you take the liberty to suggest I am guilty of.

Instead of personalizing the topic and projecting your beliefs about me, do you not think a discussion of how a fraud has been perpetration upon the people of the United States by our Supreme Court is worthy of discussion?


”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

John…I understand what you’re getting at but a war was fought. And then a Amendment was ratified.

The way I see it…gun grabbers are breaking that agreement.

1 Like

The 14th Amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Where are the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” found?

Thank the confederacy, mostly South Carolina.


Here comes the cherry picking of legislative intent to counter that incorporation is a thing and has been for a century and a half. You lost this one too @johnwk2 Nd i don’t mean the argument. I mean the fight against incorporation of the bill of rights.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting when you write an “Amendment was ratified”. As to “gun grabbers” looking to break the agreement among the states called our Constitution, we are in total agreement. The various states and people therein thought it would be wise that ordinary citizens ought to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government if necessary.

But I still am interested in your comment about an amendment was ratified.


In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.


By rights states that are restricting gun rights is in direct violation of Untied states BoR’s…specially when SCOTUS incorporated 14th with 2nd.

If my memory serves me correct that was Columbia/Heller case in 08?

1 Like

McDonald but you weren’t far off.

The Supreme Court first applied the incorporation doctrine in 1925. That is less than a century ago. It wasn’t required by the 14th amendment or that amendment would have simply said that the bill of rights holds for state governments as well as the federal government. A lot more explicit and unquestionable, yes?

1 Like

That’s not how government works.