Comments on: The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights

By: Republicans Propose Establishment of a State Religion in North Carolina - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 21 - City-Data Forum

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:26:18 +0000

[...] That isn't an argument. Where is the religion part? If you are too lazy to provide the numbered item in the thread it can't be worth it. I am not going to hunt through 200 threads. The Bill of Rights gave NO power to the Feds. That was its intent. I would also view the 14th by their reckoning would not item per item impose it on the states. No way that was the anti-federalist position. If you want to say they were wrong that is another argument. And anyone can come up with "resources". http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012…ill-of-rights/ [...]

By: Understanding Nullification: An Historical Perspective – Tenth Amendment Center

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:08:57 +0000

[...] intended to apply to the states, and any constitutional interpretation which has it doing so, is demonstrably mistaken. That was one of the fundamental features of the compact, a feature which was deliberately [...]

By: The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights – Florida Tenth Amendment Center

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights – Florida Tenth Amendment Center — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:34:39 +0000

[...] CONTINUE READING AT: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/ [...]

By: Understanding Nullification: An Historical Perspective – North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:11:37 +0000

By: Federalism Is Fundamental | GrassrootsHeadlines.com

Federalism Is Fundamental | GrassrootsHeadlines.com — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:46:15 +0000

By: Federalism Is Fundamental – Tenth Amendment Center

Federalism Is Fundamental – Tenth Amendment Center — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:44:44 +0000

By: WilliamSchooler

WilliamSchooler — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:45:54 +0000

@purple_persuader

One could make both of these arguments so I don’t get where this madness is going. Simply put the constitution constitutes Liberty which is to be free from the intrusion of Government into your life, or any other life. So many get stuck on the words when two sides created them, one wanting Federal Authority the other side does not.

Ask yourself what is the concept of this Document? To have in place Liberty (life without Government intrusion). Now you are welcome to argue it all you want but it will not change the intent of these concepts or argument sake. Ideas are everywhere, and many have many but which ones support the concept of Liberty itself by this definition? Why have the Constitutions at all if not to limit those bound by them? Governments are bound by them and not the people because people are born free to choose for themselves. Attempt to keep it simple versus the old these symbols must be gospel and interpretation a must to deliver any idea! HUH? No the concept is a concept with and intent or decision to back that intent and not what someone thinks it is because different OPINIONS wrote down different ideas challenging each other that it must be this way or that way. Here we are talking about a document that has been altered by the very reasoning you two carry on here.

Stop playing authority over and start acting on the concept. Answer this; do you want Government intruding into your life or do you wish to be free of such acts? That is your answer gentlemen so please attempt to display the support of such an answer and stop pretending to be the authority of words that have had their own alterations over time to create the very acts you are doing to each other.

You both are Life, you both create ideas and you both decide the same as I do, this means even playing field and not I am the authority and you are not or you too could be a part of this Government because they use this same crapy analogy of what a document states, screw that, what does the document mean? Liberty, look that up.

By: mrjackson

mrjackson — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:20:08 +0000

From what has been presented, there are two citizens, one a Citizen his God given Right echoed within the 5th Amendment. Then came the 14th amendment introducing the second citizen, a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment is written to protect that citizen from The Citizen within the states. In addition The Citizen standing as a citizen could also call upon the Fourteenth Amendment for protection from the states.
Its 1868, the south abandon the battle field, all the slaves were stolen from the southern states by the United States, the northern states could impose their will upon the southern states. The Fourteenth Amendment was to give protection to the property of the United States. Before the Fourteenth Amendment we were free, now we are all citizens to the United States. Go Ron Paul 2012!

By: ElectionsAreRigged

ElectionsAreRigged — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:24:44 +0000

The 6th only mentions state in regard to where the criminal trial is held. It does not mention whether the prosecution is being brought by the fed govt or the states.

You said, “The USC was a federal constitution, not a national one, so unless specifally limiting the states (as done in Article 1, section 10), any amendment would only apply to the FEDERAL government.” That is your opinion. Legal docs spell out who they are referring to where necessary, and it is necessary here bc the constitution affects both fed and state.

By: purple_persuader

purple_persuader — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:04:28 +0000

@ElectionsAreRigged As I already stated dumb ass, the very proceedings of the congress in debating the first 10 (accepted amendments) show the intent of the bill of rights.

Yes moron, the preamble to the Bill of Rights proves what the intent was, to limit the powers of the Federal government.USC? The USC was a federal constitution, not a national one, so unless specifally limiting the states (as done in Article 1, section 10), any amendment would only apply to the FEDERAL government. Do you not understand that the USC was enacting a federal government, and not a national one?

Here’s your dumb ass fallacy..you assert that “In all criminal prosecution” proves that the entirety of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, but AGAIN DUMB ASS, the states are specifiically mentioned, so that is known that it is the states that this is applicable to. Further, the purpose of this was not to interfere in internal police matters, but to ensure that those outside of a state would have equal just same as those within a state.

Have you bothered to study the federal convention debates, the state ratification debates, to study the legal practices of the day to understand the context within which the USC was framed and ratified? I doubt it. I have.