Re: James Madison: "FUCK states' rights"

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 02:52:43 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:

>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"?


Lol. You're asking me and I'm dumber than dirt. Can't even shine my
shoes.