Selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights pertaining to the 14th Amendment

[netwrkranger]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29

The whole article is interesting, but this section really jumped out at me.

The genesis of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to observe First Amendment free speech protections. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights. Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed, are the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits, and the Sixth Amendment's implicit command that a criminal jury can consist only of twelve members and must reach a unanimous verdict in order to convict.

Incorporation applies both procedural and substantive guarantees to the states. Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition. The Supreme Court has declined, however, to apply new procedural constitutional rights retroactively against the states in criminal cases (Stone v. Powell) with limited exceptions, and it has waived constitutional requirements if the states can prove that a constitutional violation was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

There are, however, some substantive guarantees whose incorporation the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on— for example, the Third Amendment right against quartering soldiers in private homes except in wartime as provided by law.

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]

There you have it folks! The 14th Amendment citizen is only a partial party to the Bill of Rights and not a full party to the Bill of Rights.

You might want to correct your status and fast =D.

Special thanks to Aksis and his brief on, "The Office of Citizen". I am seeing legal theories in a new light.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

There you have it folks! The 14th Amendment citizen is only a partial party to the Bill of Rights and not a full party to the Bill of Rights.
You might want to correct your status and fast =D.
Special thanks to Aksis and his brief on, "The Office of Citizen". I am seeing legal theories in a new light.
Regards,
netwrkranger

Yeah basically if your name is not on the bottom of that document and your claiming 14th amendment of course only partial.

Other then that, the corporations in this country go back even farther then that, you have to look back in the mid 1600s when the Corporation of London purchased the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[netwrkranger]

I know what question I would love to ask an attorney face to face now, "How do I become a full party to the Bill of Rights rather than selective incorporation of some of those rights?"

Do you think they will answer?

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I know what question I would love to ask an attorney face to face now, "How do I become a full party to the Bill of Rights rather than selective incorporation of some of those rights?" Do you think they will answer?

I would venture that they would say one of 2 things:

1. Sure, if you have a time machine will get right on it.

2. That will be $500.00 an hour, rated per 5 minutes and will give you some hope to think that you can be a full party. Don't worry a Psychologist would probably charge you the same.

You have to think what REALLY created the Bill of Rights, it was the Corporation for the Corporation, do you really want to be a part of all that in which the unalienable rights from your creator have been waived?

'SD

[palani]

The 14th Amendment has vastly expanded civil rights protections

This statement falls under the "you gotta be kidding, right?" category.

Before the 14th amendment there were NO civil rights enumerated in the constitution. Civil rights are for 14th amendment "citizens".

If there was none before and suddenly there are civil rights it might be understated to say that these rights were "vastly expanded".

(New Civil Rights = ????) divided by (old civil rights = null set) = something closely approximating a dirac delta function => interpret this to say the function tends to infinity.

[netwrkranger]

What are today the so-called Civil Rights were perhaps Civil Liberties back in the day?

It will be interesting to become a party to the 9th and 10th amendments once again in the future =D.