Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did the Supreme Court Accidentally Incorporate the full Bill of Rights?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-05-10 06:02 PM
Original message
Did the Supreme Court Accidentally Incorporate the full Bill of Rights?
Supreme Court Holds That Congress Has Incorporated Entire Bill of Rights

JB

Exclusive to Balkinization! Must cite Balkinization!

On Monday, June 28, 2010, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court inadvertently held that Congress had already applied the entire Bill of Rights to the states through the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court held that the Civil Rights Act was intended to protect substantive rights, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The same evidence of legislative intent, however, shows that Congress sought to enforce the Bill of Rights generally against the states. This means, among other things, that Congress has enforced all of the remaining provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states: The Third Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Grand Jury trial right the Seventh Amendment civil jury right (depending on what that right actually is), and the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. Under the Court's new reinterpretation of this venerable civil rights statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, currently codified at 42 U.S.C. section 1981, offers a general guarantee of basic constitutional liberties against the states.

This is the kind of judicial activism that would make the Warren Court proud!

In making their case for why the Second Amendment applies to the states, both Justice Alito's plurality opinion and Justice Thomas' concurrence pointed to evidence of framers' intentions in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866.

...

Both Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, pointing to the words "full and equal benefit," argued that these statutes guaranteed substantive rights as well as racial equality. Pointing to the words "including the constitutional right to bear arms," in the Freedman's Bureau Act, they argued that the intent of the framers of these acts was to secure fundamental rights like the right to bear arms.

Justice Alito points out that John Bingham, the principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, believed that these two acts protected the same set of rights. Bingham, it should be noted, voted against the Civil Rights Act because he believed that Congress did not have power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Nevertheless, the Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act believed that they did have the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.

...

According to the logic of the Court's argument, section 1981 already applied the Bill of Rights to the states even before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. This is a great day for civil liberties in the United States!

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/07/supreme-court-holds-that-congress-has.html


Interesting. If this is true, the Court cannot logically resist arguments for the enforcement of "The Third Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Grand Jury trial right the Seventh Amendment civil jury right (depending on what that right actually is), and the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines."

Did the Court screw up and do the right thing--recognize the full Bill of Rights, or at least all of the first eight amendments--just as the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended? That would be great, especially if they follow through.

I hope the Court acknowledges the obvious and stops trying to prop up corrupt ancient precedents designed to protect racists.
Refresh | +6 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hope the argument survives so the 7th can be used against binding pre-dispute arbitration that in
some states is used against consumers.

That in spite of such things as automobile dealers getting congress to pass a law making binding pre-dispute arbitration illegal for automobile manufacturers to impose on automotive dealers.

It's also disappointing to find so few DUers participating in this discussion.

Apparently they care little about all the unalienable/inalienable rights enumerated in our Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. "evidence of framers' intentions in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ..."
evidence of framers' intentions in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866

In 1866, I think it's safe to say that all the framers had been dead for quite awhile. 1866 is 90 years after the Declaration of Independence. I guess they think that anything that happened before Raygun was "way back then in the days of the framers." The time compression of historical illiterates and liars. You know, way back when Thomas Edison, Buddha, Socrates, and the caveman Zoltar all sat together and listened with rapt attention to Jesus's "Sermon on the T-rex."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think they mean the framers of the CRA 1866, etc.
Worded badly, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-06-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The *founders* had been dead for quite a while.
The term "framers" is commonly used for the people behind the Reconstruction amendments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC