Precisely…
1 Like
In reference to the Bill of Rights the Historical Documentation confirms 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 is at issue is, a majority on the Supreme Court taking it upon themselves to ignore our Constitution’s only method of change, Article V, and asserting the federal Bill of Rights are to be enforceable upon the States by the federal government. I cannot find where the States, and people therein agreed to do what the Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to do when each member on the Court has taken an oath to support and defend “this Constitution”, and not one they create out of thin air.
JWK
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
14th
13th and 15th.
Again I understand all that John…but little thing that had happen back in mid 1860’s.
Then we could discuss other aspect of it. How many new states joined after 14th?
I just wanted to throw that little wrench into this conversation. 
BTW…good thread.
1 Like
“In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. …”.Jefferson
Has the Tenth Amendment not bound our federal government? If not, why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
Or rejoined.
1 Like
July 9, 1868
what about the 14th13th and 15th? Is each not written to and intended to accomplish a specific and limited purpose?
Yes, incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.
That is an unsubstantiated opinion which is not supported by historical evidence.
They only enshrined the 2nd Amendment as God-given?
Not the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th? Those weren’t God given and fundamental and so therefore couldn’t be incorporated?
Read the 14th, then read the 5th. Circle the words they have in common.
Virginia was the last to be readmitted, ratifying them (15th was last) was a condition.
You can’t ignore the civil war and reconstruction in favor of political rhetoric.
2 Likes
You forgot to provide the historical evidence to support your claim.
BTW, did you read The Incorporation Doctrine is a Legal Fiction . . A Century-Old Sin that Maximized Federal Power
Read the Amendments.
What federal power is maximized with the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights limited federal power.
Incorporation expanded that limitation to state power.
The only power that was maximized by incorporation was the power of the PEOPLE.
3 Likes
So…states must follow federal rules of procedure?
How about the supremacy clause.
I see you still avoid providing historical evidence showing our Constitution was amended to allow the Bill of Rights to be enforced upon the states by our federal government.
Read the 14th Amendment John.
