Re: James Madison: "FUCK states' rights"

On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 19:59:47 -0400, Ted
<[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I see one good reason not to pass this.  Exactly what is an
"equal right(s) of conscience"?

-- 

DSA - Demented Suicidal Absurd

Every person in the US is here either  
legally or illegally. Those that are 
here illegally should be afraid.  
Be very afraid.  It does not matter 
how long you have been here.  It does 
not matter why you are here. It does not 
matter what you have done legally while you 
were here. It does not matter what any 
relative may have done while you were here. 
It only matters that you are here illegally. 
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer 
but we will find you and we will deport you. 
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

Due process:
Q. Are you here legally?  If so, where is 
the documentation to establish that?

I support ending birthright citizenship

I support Flock.

All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like 
the truth.  They start with the biggest 
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting 
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression, 
display or support of religion or 
religious positions.

AA 966