Re: Here are Cites for you, Richard (was: Re: For whom is the Bill of Rights?)

richard <member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:neck6495lp8rqrkdk5mvilnd1fv55ppo3j@xxxxxxx:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:44:26 GMT, Deadrat <a@xxxxx> wrote:

richard <member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:rt8j6413dfhrhp7hhdfnoqbc7n09dpdmrk@xxxxxxx:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:38:46 -0400, Larry <x@xxxxx> wrote:

In article <88vi649c3hold7mas1vtflp5do9asthtov@xxxxxxx>,
richard <member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now would one you kind fools please cite in the Constitution where
it specifically states the "bill of rights" applies only to the
federal government? I don't believe you can. You say the SC has
said this, show me.

In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 32 (1833), the Supreme
Court ruled that the Bill of Right does not apply to the states.
Specifically, John Marshall, the CHief Justice, wrote the unanimous
opinion, in which he stated: "[t]hese [first ten] amendments
contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the
state governments. This court cannot so apply them."

And who dare argue the ruling or opinion of the SC? Specially one
such as justice marshall.
By his ruling then, any state, city, or county, could likewise pass
laws which were totally against ANY amendment which states that
"Congress shall not...".
So Mr. Marshall ruled that WE do not have the freedom of speech.
Nor any other "right" as intended.

Justice Marshall was Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835. What he wrote
was consistent with the Constitution at the time: any state could
pass laws not in concert with the Bill of Rights. These laws may have
violated *state* constitutional guarantees, but they wouldn't have
contravened the Bill of Rights. All this started to change with the
adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, 33 years after Marshall's
death. The most recent substantive ruling is probably BSA v Dale 530
US 640 in 2000, in which the Court ruled that New Jersey couldn't
force the Boy Scouts to admit gays because the 1st Amendment's freedom
of expression through association applied to the states.

This remained the law for quite some time. For example, over 40
years later, in US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme
Court ruled that the right to assembly in the First Amendment "was
not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect
to their own citizens" and also held that the Second Amendment "has
no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national
government."

Barron v. Baltimore remained the law of the land for almost 100
years.
In 1932, however, the Court decided Powell v. Louisiana. In
Powell,
the defendant was charged in a state court with a state crime, and
was not given an attorney. He appealed, arguing that the Bill of
Rights guaranteed him the right to counsel. The state argued that
according to Barron, that only applied to federal criminal cases.
But the Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the Bill of Rights
did provide Powell with the right to counsel.

This was the first *** in the rule. The most significant blow,
however, came from Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968. In that case, the
court adopted the idea of "selective incorporation" that has been
previously explained to you, Richard.

After Duncan, virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been
incorporated against the states, but a few provisions haven't. The
second amendment, the right to trial after grand jury indictment,
and the protection against excessive bail have not yet been held to
apply to the states.

And the right to a civil trial.

What sayeth you now, Richard?

I don't have the right to a trial? Sorry. But yes I do.

You have always had the right to a trial for (most) federal criminal
offenses. You probably have had that right for state charges from
your state constitution. However, you were guaranteed the right to a
speedy trial starting only in 1967 (via Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386
US 213), the right to a public trial starting only in 1948 (via In re
Oliver, 333 US 257), and the right to trial by impartial jury starting
only in 1968 (via Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145).

If that were true Larry, why are you an ADA?

New York State's constitution has its own bill of rights, guaranteeing
a trial by jury (Article I, Section 2). Had New York repealed that
section of its constitution before the decisions in the cases I cited
above, then you wouldn't have been guaranteed a state trial. Such a
repeal would have no effect now, because the states are bound by the
trial provisions of the Bill of Rights.

In my personal opinon, when the amendment uses the words "Congress
shall not......", this also means that states may not do so because
states are merely a subdiivison of the federal government.

Sorry, but Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with you. Under the
federal system, the states are not "merely a subdivision of the
federal government." They are their own sovereigns in certain areas,
and the feds have to stay out of the states' business in those areas.
Do you think that the Congress can select a state's electors to the
Electoral College?

ya know larry? I seem to kind of have learned that somewhere back in
school some 40 years or more ago.

I think time has dimmed your memory of the lesson.

Didn't you? Oh. You skipped that day.

Who gives authority to the states larry?
I'll tell ya what. You go on out to California and get a license to
grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. Then call the DEA and invite
them to your house. You'll find out what being in handcuffs is like.

Sure, but they're federal handcuffs. The feds have authority over
drugs. Shoot a private citizen in California, and the feds won't do a
thing. Simple murder is a state issue.

Why do we even have states?

We have the kind of states that we have because of our colonial
history.

Why do you pay federal taxes?
The IRS is a federal agency. So it has no control over a state
resident right?

The IRS does not and cannot enforce state income tax laws. You are a
citizen of the US and a citizen of the state in which you reside. The
feds have authority over you as US citizen for federal issues but no
authority over you for state-onoy issues.

When I get hauled in to the IRS and get indicted, I'll advise the
judge in the trial, that I'm not entitled to, that YOU specifically
said that the federal government can't do so because their
jurisdiction does not include a state.

No one says that. Federal law is the supreme law of the land,
including all states. But federal law must concern federal issues.


Thank you sir!
You just shot yourself in the foot.
You have been previously stating that any state can write laws
concerning such things as "freedom of speech", but now you're finally
saying they can't, because it is a federal issue.

States cannot now pass laws restricting freedom of speech because the 1st
Amendment applies to them. I've never held otherwise. Before 1925, any
such restrictions on the states came from their own constitutions.

Why is it a federal issue?

It's a federal issue because the Supreme Court incorporated the 1st
Amendment into the 14th, so it [the 1st] applies to the states.

Because the item can be applied to all
states, and it's residents equally and fairly. A federal law can not
be written that says something like "Georgia peaches can't be shipped
to California".
But a federal law can be written denying all states from growing
peaches.

Without commenting on whether this peach power obtains, I'll restate:
the 1st Amendment applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment.

In your cite about the BSA and NJ, the state can't force the BSA from
allowing gays, as the BSA is a private organization and they can
legally keep out certain types if they so choose. As long as they
don't show any favoritism.

Nothing under New Jersey law prevented New Jersey from demanding that the
BSA admit gays as long as the BSA used public facilities. The Supreme
Court ruled in 2000 that the 1st Amendment gave private organizations
protection in their discrminatory practices under the rubric of
"expressive association" and then incorporated that right into the 14th
Amendment, thus binding New Jersey.

Do you understand this?

However, if the federal government writes a law that makes it illegal
to deny membership based upon sexual orientation, then the BSA would
have to allow them in. In every state.

The federal government could not write such a law because the 1st
Amendment will not allow it.

Do you understand this?
.