However, noting that I haven’t reviewed Nordyke v. King, it is important to consider that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of statues containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. In fact, see the 2nd A. in the middle column of the page from the Congressional Globe at the following link. The page is from Bingham’s post-ratification clarification of that amendment.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

So the 9th Circus Court’s decision concerning the 2nd A. does indeed reflect the intentions of the 39th Congress in my opinion, even if accidentally, the USSC’s practice of selective incorporation a baseless invention of the Court as evidenced by historical congressional records.

But don’t go away mad just because the post-Civil War 39th Congress rearranged the furniture with respect to the scope of certain aspects of the BoR. There’s good news too.

More specifically, in stark contrast to the USSC’s indefensible argument that the 14th A. essentially applied the BoR in its entirety to the states, the 1st A.’s prohibition on certain powers of the federal government for example, note that Bingham had also emphasized that the 14th A. was to take away no state powers.

“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States **no rights** (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

“**No right** (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

So whereas the 1st A. prohibits certain powers to the federal government altogether, John Bingham had clarified that only the privileges and immunities contained in the BoR were applied to the states, not the 1st A.’s prohibition on certain federal powers. In fact, Justice Reed noted that judges are to balance 10th A. protected state powers with 14 A. protected personal federal rights.

“Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery.” –Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/yvtqoy

And the reason that the USSC has misrepresented Bingham’s clarification of the limits of the 14th A. is because we’ve got corrupt, special-interest justices who shamelessly rewrite constitutional history to justify their PC perversions of that document. For example, consider the following twisted interpretation of the relationship between the 1st and 14th Amendments by Justice Owen Roberts.

“The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect.” –Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

So does a corrupt, Constitution-ignoring, pro-big federal government USSC help to explain ongoing social strife with respect to PC interpretations of our basic constitutional freedoms and weakened state sovereignty? I certainly think so.