In a message dated 6/10/01 12:33:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage@einstein.ssz.com writes:
The Bill of Rights actlly grants no rights, it only limits what the government may do with respect to defining/restricting them. See 9'th and 10'th. It in effect sets out a list of prohibitions of things that can't/shouldn't be done. I challenge you to uafind a single 'assignment' sentence in the first 10 amendments.
With respect to the laws of the states, the Constitution only(!) stipulates that the federals must guarantee them to be representative. It
Sorry, poor choice of language on my part. True, the bill of rights doesn't actually *assign* rights- it prohibits the federal government from making any laws that restrict them. Reading from amendments 1-10, and the othe articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states- and this was legal fact until the passage of the 14th amendment. But that 14th stated that (paraphrasing here) "no state may deny a citizen due process of law". The Supreme Court interpreted this (in effect, adding foot notes to the constitution) to mean that the Bill of Rights now applied to the states. I know that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that "states must honour the bill of rights". But look in Supreme Court decisions (which, legally, are pretty much an extension of the constitution). There, it is *clearly* stated that the Bill of Right's restrictions of the federal government's powers applies to the states as well. So when you say that the Constitution only says that states laws must be representative, you are ignoring the 14th amendment, and what it does to the relationthip between state governments and their citizens. But yeah, that's all I'm trying to say. Enough is enough. Ender
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 CeejEngine@aol.com wrote:
Sorry, poor choice of language on my part. True, the bill of rights doesn't actually *assign* rights- it prohibits the federal government from making any laws that restrict them.
...or defining what is or isn't. It isn't the federals business to manage the individual. It is their business to manage interstate commerce (of both type), make sure all state governments are 'representative' (if that doesn't bring the fed's into it nothing else will, how can a state government be representative if some faction can't speak or they aren't getting fair legal protection? Interstate commerce, second definition) and handle foreign interests.
Reading from amendments 1-10, and the othe articles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states- and this was legal fact until the passage of the 14th amendment.
Perhaps, but it's incorrect interpretation. For example the 5th and 6th say 'criminal' not 'federal' or 'state' (there is no specification as in the 1st as to who can't do it). To even quible over it is a fundamental abandonment of American Democratic thought. Consider that one of the fundamental thoughts of 'American Democratic' theory is 'equal protection under the law'. Consider why this country revolted from Britian, unequal protection under the law. American thought is fundamentaly about 'if it ain't prohibited it's permitted' and 'it can't be prohibited unless it can be shown to harm anothers expression of rights (ie life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness)'. It isn't about 'you can only do what is listed'. That's why we have a list of things which are meant to not be listed ever(!). I love current popular American political thought: "The only way to protect Democracy is to give it up." And the trains still won't run on time... -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
CeejEngine＠aol.com -
Jim Choate