.. a 14th Amendment citizen, you ARE NOT a full party to the Constitution nor do you have access to all its provisions.
Source:
Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
Quote:
Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth apply the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States[citation needed][5]. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. Until the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham's congressional testimony.[6] Though the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black's interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost of all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights. The 14th Amendment has vastly expanded civil rights protections and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[7]
Partial versus Total incorporation
In the 1940's and 1960's the Supreme Court gradually issued a series of decisions incorporating several of the specific rights from the Bill of Rights, so as to be binding upon the States.[8] A dissenting school of thought championed by Justice Hugo Black supported that incorporation of specific rights, but urged incorporation of all specific rights instead of just some of them. Black was for so-called mechanical incorporation, or total incorporation, of Amendments 1 through 8 of the Bill of Rights.[9] Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to respect all of the enumerated rights set forth in the first eight amendments, but he did not wish to see the doctrine expanded to include other, unenumerated "fundamental rights" that might be based on the Ninth Amendment. Black felt that his formulation eliminated any arbitrariness or caprice in deciding what the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect, by sticking to words already found in the Constitution. Although Black was willing to invalidate federal statutes on federalism grounds, he was not inclined to read any of the first eight amendments as states' rights provisions as opposed to individual rights provisions.[9] Justice Black felt that the Fourteenth amendment was designed to apply the first eight amendments from the Bill of Rights to the states, as he expressed in Adamson v. California. [10] This view was again expressed by Black in Duncan v. Louisiana: "'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States."[11]
|
And that... is where your Constitution went.... correct status first. I know the article says it applies against the States, but let me pose two questions:
What happened to substantive due process of law?
What happened to substantive rights?
Regards,
netwrkranger