Re: For whom is the Bill of Rights?


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:%P7bk.31216$ZE5.5820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IMHO, this thinking that the BoR only applies to the federal
government is pure bull***.

What if we cited SCOTUS cases for you that said this.

So Larry - what you are saying is that you can showcases where
the
SCOTUS has held that states have "ABSOLUTELY NO" obligation to
follow the dictates of the Bill of Rights? SHOW US PLEASE.

Well, as of today this isn't the case. The Supreme Court has held
that states are obligated to follow almost every provision of the
bill of rights (but not all).

Be specific which ones do NOT apply?

The 2nd.

That seems to have been resolved, no?

Not by Heller. The Court specifically noted that the case is about DC,
i.e., the feds. Presumably the immediately-filed suits against state and
local bans will reach the Court, and if it applies the same reasoning, it
will come to the same conclusion. But we'll have to wait until then.

Oh so the prick in Sacramento can OVERRULE the SCOTUS now? That's the
ticket take it to Sacramento and then the 9th! I'm still wondering how that
*** in Sacramento managed to get jurisdiction over Guantanamo
operations.

The grand jury part of the 5th.

What of the rest?

Double jeopardy?

Yes. Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969).

So - until 1969 there was NO protection against double jeopardy?

Self incrimination?

Yes. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964).

And NO right against self incrimination?

Due process?

Due process is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment itself.

Well if the first 10 don't count WHY whould the 14th?

Cumpulsory process?

Yes. Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14 (1967).

So until 1967 if you were accused of a crime you had NO right to
subpoena witnesses...

If one part didn't apply, NONE of it did RAT.

Your ignorance is appalling. Where did you pull that rule out of?

Oh so it is a CAFETERIA deal, some parts we LIKED would apply, and those
we didn't would not. I get it.

In Adamson v. California, 332 US 46 (1947), Hugo Black argued for total
incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but his point of view was not
adopted.
The Supreme Court continued to incorporate rights one at a time into the
14th Amendment just as it had done since 1897.

Is it THAT clear?

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/adamson_v_calif_cortner.htm
"Adamson v. California was argued before the Court on January 15 and 16,
1947, and was considered in the conference of the Court on January 18.
According to Justice Rutledge's conference notes, Justice Burton voted to
affirm the California Supreme Court's decision upholding Adamson's
convictions. Rutledge, who voted next, voted to reverse, as did Justices
Murphy and Douglas. Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, and Reed voted to affirm,
with Reed arguing that even if the Self-Incrimination Clause applied to the
states, there had been no violation of the right in the Adamson case.
Justice Black passed, saying that although he believed the
Self-Incrimination Clause applied to the states, he was unsure as to whether
comment upon the failure of a defendant to testify violated the clause.
Voting last, Chief Justice Vinson voted to affirm, and the vote was thus
five votes to affirm and three to reverse, with Black passing."

Doesn't seem to me that the justices rules that it DID NOT APPLY to the
states. Just that some didn't think it did. That's far from being as black
and white as you see it.

The 7th.

Are you saying that in state courts there are NO jury trials?

No, I'm saying that jury trials in civil cases are not required by the
14th
Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause. Why? Because the Supreme
Court said so in Curtis v. Loether, 415 US 189 (1974). There is the right
to such trials in just about every state, but that right is guaranteed by
state law, not the Bill of Rights.


So AGAIN you state that the bill of rights do NOT apply in state courts.

The excessive bail part of the 8th.

But then what of cruel and unusual punishment?

Incorporated by Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).


So prior to that one could be strung up by their testiocles and it would
be perfectly constitutional?

So you are saying that SCOTUS has said SOME parts of it apply and others
do not?

Yes. Fercryanoutloud, that's what "selective incorporation" means.


How do we know which of the Bill of Rights we are entitled to and when?
Do they have asterrisks? (Offer not valid in kentucky, Ohio, and Texas?)

Do you think
that's what the case Larry cited said? That the Bill of Rights is a
cafeteria thing? That states can pick and choose which parts they want
to uphold and deny later?

I'm gonna type *real* slow this time so you can follow.

SCOTUS ... IS ... THE ... ONE ... THAT ... PICKS ... AND ... CHOOSES.

Once the Court has held that a right is incorporated, i.e., that the
14th's
"privileges and immunities" clause includes that right, then the states
have no choice; they're bound to protect that right.


So if the court hasn't then they don't apply. How come they APPLY to people
in Guantanamo then?


.