Contrary to popular belief the Constitution for the united States is not a contract. It is a rule book written to limit the authority of the government in order to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.
A contract is an agreement that creates an obligation to the participating parties abide by the mutually agreed upon terms.
The Constitution was written to govern the government not the people. It is the responsibility of government to obey the rules and it is our responsibility to enforce them.
If we don't hold our government officials accountable they have no incentive to honor their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution can not protect us, if we don't defend it.
Unfortunately when our Congressional Representatives violate the rules instead of being punished, they are rewarded by the Wall Street bankers and corporations who fund their campaigns.
We can not expect our elected officials to do their job, if we fail to do our job. We must either submit to tyranny or take responsibility. Giving Congress access to our credit cards is like giving the keys to your liquor cabinet to a thirsty alcoholic.
We the people elect the representatives, but they take their marching orders from the financial elite. We were supposed to be the employer and the government officials were to be our employees.
For our government to function properly, we must educate ourselves on the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility and hold our elected officials accountable.
If we don't govern our government, our government will become our masters and we will become their servants. The only way we can have a government of, by and for the people is for each of us to take responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable.
Representatives who violate the Constitution should be indicted and prosecuted and if found guilty they should be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
The Constitution is not a contract, it is the Supreme Law of the land and it is the responsibility of the people to enforce it.
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.
I would disagree with the claim that the 14th completely over turned Barron v Baltimore. Here is why. The courts acknowledged for a long time that there are citizens of the states that are not under the 14th. Their rights were and are suppose to still be secured by the relevant state constitution - thus the case still has merit in a judicial proceeding.
With the 14th there were suddenly lots of people in the states that were fed citizens. Naturally their limited protection comes from the fed constitution. Unfortunately, as the courts have stated, the framers of the 14th failed to incorporate the fed bill of rights. Congress still allows some of those protections as privileges.
Under the current official policy of the communist controlled gov and trial courts insistence that they will, via an act of war, impose 14th status on everyone, the aforementioned case is dead since a fed citizen receives no protections from any state bill of rights.
I agree the 14th was not applied as intended. I disagree that the SCt usurped powers. Instead, I feel the SCt applied the 14th as mandated by the fed constitution itself. That just turned out to be different than its framers intended due to their lack of constitutional literacy.
I feel the 14th is incomplete since it failed to incorporate any bill of rights or the right to justice.
Then we have the issue of the Bar and thereby the legislatures and all trial courts being under absolute communist control.
Today all trial courts are part of the legislative branch. The judicial branch courts are closed. Only judicial branch courts have authority over a state-only citizen. When you are processed in a legislative / statutory court, they cannot see any of the rights in that state's bill of rights. So, yelling about those rights is useless.
The same with most of the fed bill of rights. For example, the 2nd amendment is totally ignored because it is not considered a right under the 14th.
The 2nd Amendment has been incorporated under the 14th. That was done in McDonald v. Chicago.
The 14th Amendment was ratified under the force of marshal law and threatened replacement of any state legislature that would not vote to ratify it, without a proper election of that public servant occurring.
It was, therefore, never properly ratified!
Yes, the 14th was not properly ratified, but it probably would be if resubmitted. See http://constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm
Not quite. The decision in Barron was not that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but that were not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear and decide. That meant a state citizen had to seek relief only in his own state courts.
The position was adopted by the Court because otherwise a slave could sue in federal court for emancipation under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
It is worth examining the legislative history of the 14th Amendment. See http://constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm From that the intent to extend the jurisdiction of federal courts to all of the Bill of Rights is clear. But that was done using the phrase "Privileges and Immunities", which is synonymous with the term "rights" as used in the Bill of Rights (all of which are more precisely immunities, not just privileges).
All the rights protected in state constitutions are adjudicable in federal courts. The 14th did not remove jurisdiction from them.
That is why some justices, such as Thomas, wanted McDonald v. Chicago to be decided on the Privileges and Immunities Clause. That would reverse the perceived precedent of the Slaughterhouse Cases, which was not a true precedent but only dictum.
I disagree. If the fed bill of rights applied to the states - an independent sovereign gov, then the fed gov would have had the authority to enforce their application upon the states - just as it does today with the civil rights of fed / 14th citizens living in the states.
As I understand it, the United States / fed gov, thru an action brought in an Art 3 [ judicial / common law ] court, could force the states to acknowledge and protect the rights of their citizens that were secured to them by their relevant state constitution and bill of rights.
For a state-only citizen, their rights are suppose to arise on the state level and not on the fed level. Thus the jurisdictional bar to act recognized in Barron.
Wrong. People may very well have rights that are not enforceable in federal courts, which have limited jurisdictions. "Application to" does not imply "enforceable upon" by some court. Different concepts.
Please explain why you think the 2nd has been incorporated in the 14th. The courts have said no part of the bill of rights are incorporated into the 14th. Further, the courts have clearly stated that the gov has no power to regulate in any way the exercise of a constitutional right.
Before the courts were changed and 14th status was imposed on everyone, you would own a firearm after getting out of prison.
Today you have to get gov permission to own a firearm and many people are forbidden from owning them even though they have never committed any crime nor been declared incompetent.
The 14th Amendment did not forbid the states to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the clause 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.' Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99 (1908); "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448;
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
Twining and Maxwell were incorrectly opined. and Twining was wrongly decided.
True, a state legislature may also grant them civil / legal rights applicable in that state. This would be actionable in a state statutory court, but a taking without a change in legislation, I think could also be actionable in an Art 4 court because that would be a taking without due process, which would rise to a federal constitutional violation under the 14th.