1833 SCOTUS: Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, Bill of Rights does not apply to state govts

[steve2470]

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be applied to state governments. Thus, any state could pass a law, unless pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause (to which the Bill of Rights did not apply) permitting any violation of the Bill of Rights.

eta:

Later Supreme Court rulings would return to Barron to reaffirm its central holding, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (interpreted, however, to have the same meaning as the 5th amendment) to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.

The horrendous decision here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

[Gothmog]

1. This was prior to 14th Amendment

Now all or most of the bill of rights have been incorporated and made applicable to the states

[steve2470]

3. yes

I was just raising awareness of this bad decision, which required the 14th Amendment to correct.

[jberryhill]

4. Absent the 14th Amendment, it wasn't a "bad decision", though

And, before we got the 14th Amendment, we fought a war over this and related ideas about how the federal and state governments relate.

[steve2470]

5. Ok I'm not understanding you

Are you saying that before the 14th Amendment, this was a perfectly valid decision ? I admit to not being a constitutional lawyer (or any lawyer). It just seems "bad" to me that the Bill of Rights only apply to the federal government. That leaves an enormous hole for violations of civil rights. Obviously in this decision, the SCOTUS disagreed with me.

[jberryhill]

6. That was one of the main points of the Civil War

It was not a "bad" decision legally. Yes, before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was not understood to apply to the states.

I mean, golly, look at the text of the First Amendment, for example. "CONGRESS shall make no law..." etc. That's pretty specific. Absent something else, it only applies to Congress. It is why, for example, Jefferson was also the author of the Virginia statute on religious freedom which, yes, was a separate statute eliminating religious taxes and religious tests for office in Virginia.

What rights people had, relative to the state governments, varied wildly in the 1800's. The rights people had in relation to the federal government were purposefully broader, because it was believed that people were primarily citizens of their state first, and the nation second.

Again, it's part of the reason why we fought a war, and got the 14th Amendment afterwards.

[steve2470]

7. Thanks for your civil and informative reply

Apparently it was universally accepted that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. This goes to show that unless something is very clearly spelled out in a law or constitution, judges will find a way to interpret the law or constitution as narrowly as possible. I'm reminded of Scalia's method, using the dictionary to interpret words. Of course we all use dictionaries or legal dictionaries, but we need to also look at legislative intent, imho.

Thanks again.

[jberryhill]

8. The worst governments are run by dead people

[kelly1mm]

2. That is why the legal theory of incorporation via the 14th amendment was adopted. Recently

the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to apply to the states via the 14th amendment by the McDonald case. (Heller applied to DC, not the states).