Questions about Incorporation


PDA






Lone_Gunman
July 17, 2009, 08:08 AM
As I understand the concept of incorporation, it is the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments and laws.

From a historical perspective, the BOR was put into place to protect the states and people from intrusion by the federal government, and was therefore intended as a restriction on federal but not state government. The early states were afraid of a runaway national government.

With that in mind, why is incorporation not an intrusion on states rights? Is it not a broadening of federal control over us all?

If you enjoyed reading about "Questions about Incorporation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Phatty
July 17, 2009, 08:20 AM
With that in mind, why is incorporation not an intrusion on states rights?
It is, but the States agreed to that intrusion when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

Lone_Gunman
July 17, 2009, 08:49 AM
You are referring to the due process clause?

TexasRifleman
July 17, 2009, 09:04 AM
I think that is it, the states pretty much asked for it:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

The original author of the privileges and immunities clause said this of his writing:

"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress…with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the constitution today. It hath that extent—no more…

Slaughterhouse basically broke this, but the argument still exists and several legal experts feel that Slaughterhouse may not hold up in a Second Amendment case.

All the original Supreme Court thinking was based on racism and nothing else. Hard to make those same arguments today.

I guess we'll find out.

It's bizarre argument is that the Bill of Rights applies to US Citizens only. But, if you live in a state, you are not a US Citizen only. You have dual citizenship so the Bill of Rights might not apply in all cases.

deadin
July 17, 2009, 10:41 AM
Does anyone see the irony in wanting incorporation so the individual States/Cities can’t enforce laws or regulations that “supersede” the RKBA, also want the Federal Government to require that States recognize all CCW’s wherever they’re from and then laud States like Montana and Tennessee that are trying to pass legislation that basically tells the Feds to pack sand when it comes to firearms restrictions?

Just an observation……:confused:

TexasRifleman
July 17, 2009, 10:43 AM
Does anyone see the irony in wanting incorporation so the individual States/Cities can’t enforce laws or regulations that “supersede” the RKBA, also want the Federal Government to require that States recognize all CCW’s wherever they’re from and then laud States like Montana and Tennessee that are trying to pass legislation that basically tells the Feds to pack sand when it comes to firearms restrictions?

The legislation you refer to has nothing to do with firearm restrictions, it has to do with firearm manufacture and the interstate commerce clause.
The laws you reference don't allow the manufacture of guns that are illegal at a Federal level, they simply say that guns made in a state and sold in the same state should not be regulated by the Fed.

Asking the Fed to apply the Bill of Rights to states and also asking the Fed to stay out of commerce does not conflict in my mind.

deadin
July 17, 2009, 11:21 AM
Asking the Fed to apply the Bill of Rights to states and also asking the Fed to stay out of commerce does not conflict in my mind.

Somehow the old saying about "The nose of the camel" comes to mind.:uhoh:

TexasRifleman
July 17, 2009, 12:25 PM
Somehow the old saying about "The nose of the camel" comes to mind.

Well it was done by California long before the recent law in Montana.

California started it with the medical marijuana laws. They challenge the Federal law on the exact same grounds, that interstate commerce is not involved since the drug is grown and sold in the same state, so no interstate commerce exists.

This isn't a new argument or applicable to just guns.
The Fed has used the interstate commerce clause to get involved in just about everything.

Not sure how we could make it worse by pushing back a little.

hugh damright
July 17, 2009, 01:09 PM
why is incorporation not an intrusion on states rights? Is it not a broadening of federal control over us all?
I see incorporation as an attempt to subvert our frame of government from federal to national. The States did not agree to incorporation ... the 14th was not properly ratified, and regardless, the 14th says nothing about making the USBOR binding upon the States. While a couple of radicals thought the 14th would make the USBOR binding upon the States, in general, the 39th Congress seemed to intend that the 14th cover the same ground as the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Activists seem to ignore all the people who said that the intent was to cover the same ground as the Civil Rights Act, and instead they hold up the view of a couple of radicals saying the intent was to make the USBOR binding against the States as if that view was representative.

Further, incorporation is not only an intrusion of States' rights, it is intrusion of all our rights against the federal government. The intent was to declare rights against the federal government. State have rights against the feds, and so do individuals. So yes, I think you have it right, that incorporation is a broadening of federal control over us all.

From what I can gather, this desire to have a higher power over the States is a desire for monarchy.

deadin
July 17, 2009, 02:16 PM
California started it with the medical marijuana law

I'm not convinced that we have heard the last of this
(Especially now that California is looking at this for revenue enhancement.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Questions about Incorporation" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!