Check your email to see if you received a message requiring you to confirm your membership. This is common on some sites to avoid autobots creating numerous accounts for spamming purposes. If not then you may need to contact the administrator for help, you may need to add an address to your address book to let the message get through your ISP's spam filter.

I don't think Facebook log-in counts. I can't vote either, and I used my facebook account.

First of all, the incorporation doctrine is a fraud, is historically inaccurate, and is one of the greatest destroyers of the federalism and local republican self-government that the founders gave us in the constitution. It's given us rule by judges - judges that create or destroy right on a whim - and what people need to do is start focusing on expanding liberty in their own areas instead of trying to force their way on the entire country. But we could talk about that in other threads if you really wanted to discuss it in detail.

So explain, because I don't get it - if a state resists unconstitutional federal laws and expands liberty - you think it's a bad thing? Or do you prefer the status quo - waiting for federal politicians to follow the constitution - begging them to follow the constitution. Waiting for federal judges to give us "permission" to exercise our rights?

The reality is this - sooner or later, the American people are going to have to once again learn how to exercise their rights even if the federal politicians and federal judges don't want us to. That's how freedom lives...

Even though I have no love for the federal judiciary, are they the real bogyman on this issue?

On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal for the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate. In a Duke Law Journal article in 1994, William Van Alstyne and his associates wrote the following concerning Senator Howard’s remarks:

“So, in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, Senator Jacob Meritt Howard of Michigan began by detailing the “first section” of that amendment, i.e., the section that “relates the privileges and immunities of citizens.” He explained that the first clause of the amendment (the “first section”), once approved and ratified, would “restrain the power of the States” even as Congress was already restrained (by the Bill of Rights) from abridging—
the personal rights quarantined and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempted from unreasonable searches and seizure; [etc., through the Eighth Amendment].”

Senator Howard concluded his remarks by stating:

“[T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees [the first 8 Amendments]. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them…. The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”

It appears incorporation, right or wrong, was being contemplated through this Amendment. So was this actually an attack on federalism by Congress? If yes, then every State that voted in favor of this Amendment was guilty too.

In 1871, a bill was before the House of Representatives that contemplated enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Representative Bingham, still a member of House, gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the Amendment as he had originally conceived it:

“Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] did me unwittingly, great service, when he ventured to ask me why I changed the form of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment from the form in which I reported it to the House of February, 1866, from the Committee on Reconstruction. …I had the honor to frame the amendment as reported in February, 1866, and the first section, as it now stands, letter for letter syllable for syllable, in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, save the introductory clause defining citizens.”

He continued his remarks by stating:

“These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,’ are an express prohibition upon every State in the Union…”

The author of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that the intent of this clause was to make the prohibitions contained in the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

Even though I question how the wording of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment accomplished this feat, this is the record of their comments for whatever it's worth today.

Bob - you'd have to explain it more than in those few quotes, which are highly misleading. To understand anything constitutional, you have to examine a few things 1) the intent of the author, 2) the meaning of the words themselves and 3) the understanding of the people who ratified it and gave it life.

A requirement to incorporate the BofR against the states could have been crystal clear if Bingham had added a simple clause, as follows: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, including those defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution."

Lacking that kind of clarity, we need more evidence than just the intent of the drafter. We want to know that the country intended to put Congress and the federal courts in charge of ensuring that the states follow the Bill of Rights.

There is very little historical support that the ratifying states had any intention of incorporating. And maybe that's why the courts never incorporated until it was politically feasible about 60 years later. That's not constitutional, that's judicial fiat.

And - if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates anything it incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed over the veto of President Johnson. This was the view of virtually every Republican and Democrat in Congress who spoke in the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment or spoke on the matter to their constituents.

Senator Trumbull, the draftsman of the bill, stated that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was "a reiteration of the rights as set forth in the Civil Rights Bill." Those rights he elsewhere stated were "the right to acquire property, the right to come and go at pleasure, the right to enforce rights in the courts, to make contracts, and to inherit and dispose of property."

Curious - also what do you mean by a state "not liking interstate commerce" or forcing "100% taxation" through nullification. What are you envisioning? Maybe I can offer some insight or point you in the right direction on this whole nullification issue in regards to this scenario you're concerned about...

Frank, like Michael I cannot follow the logic behind your comment " they didn't like the fact that there is interstate commerce, or better yet that there is not 100% taxation and wanted to try and force those issues using Nullification ". What does it mean that state "A" does not like interstate commerce", that the state seals its borders? that it refuses to allow its citizens to do business with vendors in other states? You are not making any sense. Then your comment about forcing 100% taxation through Nullification is alo incomprehensible. Nullification is not state A forcing its demands on States B, C & D. Nullification is State A telling the Federal government to go pound sand with regard to a law or requirement of he Federal government for which there is no Constitutional basis.
While it is good to have you say you agree with the idea of Nullification, I do not think you have even a basic understanding of the concept. The good news is, you are on the right website to remedy the educaional deficiency. Hope you will and then join the effort.

Have some faith - if the people will not continue to put up with a severely incapacitated and corrupted federal government, they certainly would not put up with state corruption. I believe, that people left alone, will flourish and live well, according to the laws of God and of Nature, and that we are all Americans, and we can no longer depend on the government. We must be self-reliant - We must look after ourselves - get off our butts and do the work. This country was founded on such principles, and they are still applicable today.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution define what the feds are allowed to do. It dictates that whatever is not explicitly the responsibility of the feds to be the responsibilities of the states and the people. Within the confines of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the states can be as restrictive or as lax as they want. One state may choose to have a caretaker govt and allow the people to operate in true libertarian fashion, another state may choose to be as socialistic as the feds are becoming and control every facet of its people's lives. That was the original intent of "The Great Experiment" that was the infant United States. The states were to be a hotbed of experimentation. If people liked what a state did, they were free to move there to enjoy the increased freedom. Similarly, if they didn't like what their state was doing, there was always another state more to their liking that they could move to. I applaud all of the states that have the balls to attempt to take their state back from the clutches of an over-reaching govt. Perhaps if more states become successful, people will get the idea and begin electing candidates to Congress and the Presidency who actually believe in the constitution.

It couldn't be any worse than the 'massive issue' WE have right now. Now isn't the time to 'git sceered'!

This is long overdue - ever since the assassination of President Kennedy, a coup d`etate, we have been earmaked for slavery (economic and labor) by this treacherous New World DisOrder (tyranny). We, the People are smart enough to see that this must stop, and the only one's that can and must do it, are US - The People.
The fedeal government has become so corrupted and criminal in its actions, by both politicians and their money handlers, that more and more people are waking up to the fact that we must be self-governing, and not rely on these Pinheads in the District of Corruption !!!

Joe,

I agree, there should be accountability for the corruption and those criminals (Traitors) to our country and our Constitution - send 'em all to GitMO !! :>) We, the People must all stick together to remove the oppression and tyranny of this corrupted and useless federal government, and ensure they are restrained to only those duties allowed in the Constitution. Thanks, ~ Dr. E

Amen to that. I would love to help those usurpers to their just end!