Re: James Madison: "FUCK states' rights"

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 08:02:43 -0700, Rudy Canoza <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In its 1833 decision in Barron v. Baltimore, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed 
>something about the American constitutional order that had been widely 
>understood since the founding. Namely, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 
>Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and placed no limits on 
>the authority of the states.
>
>The First Amendment was actually quite explicit about it. "Congress shall make 
>no law," it reads, "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
>free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or 
>the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government 
>for a redress of grievances."
>
>Under the original Constitution, in other words, a state government was free to 
>make laws that abridged the rights of speech, press, religion, and assembly 
>without raising any First Amendment problems. Unless its own state constitution 
>said otherwise, a state was free to impose such restrictive laws within its own 
>state borders.
>
>All of that changed, however, with the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment. 
>"No State shall make or enforce any law," the 14th Amendment says, "which shall 
>abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall 
>any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
>of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
>the laws."
>
>That language was understood to apply the Bill of Rights and other unenumerated 
>rights against the states. The 14th Amendment was needed, explained Sen. Jacob 
>Howard (R-Mich.), who introduced the amendment in the Senate in 1866 and 
>successfully managed its passage, because the "mass of privileges, immunities, 
>and rights" secured by the Constitution "do not operate in the slightest degree 
>as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation." According to Howard, "the 
>great object of the first section of this [14th] amendment is, therefore, to 
>restrict the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these 
>great fundamental guarantees."
>
>The Supreme Court finally got around to affirming that 1868-era understanding of 
>the First Amendment's limitations on state action in the 1925 case of Gitlow v. 
>New York. Since Gitlow, it has been settled SCOTUS case law that the First 
>Amendment binds both the federal government and the states.
>
>Had one prominent founding father gotten his way, it never would have taken so long.
>
>On June 8, 1789, James Madison announced the batch of proposed constitutional 
>amendments that would eventually become enshrined as the Bill of Rights. One of 
>Madison's would-be amendments, however, did not make the final cut, as it failed 
>in the Senate after passing the House of Representatives. Here is what that lost 
>Madisonian amendment to the Constitution would have said: "No state shall 
>violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the 
>trial by jury in criminal cases."
>
>Put differently, Madison wanted several parts of the Bill of Rights to apply 
>equally against the federal government and the states. Why? "Because it must be 
>admitted, on all hands," Madison said, "that the state governments are as liable 
>to attack these invaluable privileges as the general [national] government is, 
>and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against."
>
>https://reason.com/2026/08/06/why-james-madison-wanted-greater-limits-on-states-rights/
>
>"States' rights" is bullshit.


Wow. What an intelligent guy.