Quote:
Originally posted by Mobycat:

Well, considering the 14th Amendment was determined to make the 1st Amendment applicable to the states in it's entirety since 1937 (Palko v. Connecticut), I'd say it sure has taken a long time for it to cause the downfall of the US.

Ironically, it was the Republicans who pushed this Amendment through.

But I must say...interesting journey that Amendment took to becoming law.
You do have a funny way of looking at American Constitutional law when it suits your agenda.

All Federal rulings.... including Supreme Court rulings are by nature not permanent. They are easily and frequently overruled by either higher or subsequent courts.

The first amendment was and is applicable to the states by virtue of the fact that it IS in the Constitution...Hence the 10th Amendment. All Amendments are applicable to the states. Remember one thing... The 14th Amendment was ratified under duress in 1868. Possibly because many at the time knew it would be abused because of it's loose wording.

The point of this conversation is a matter of the interpreation of the U.S. Constitution. How broadly and in what manner are we going to continue to allow the federal judiciary to make these interpretations? I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to update Article III Section I because there is too many social values being brought to bear in federal cases. They are not adhering to and interpreting the Constitution which is their jobs and what they have sworn to do. This was also evident in another bad Supreme Court Case... Dredd Scott. I am sure even you would agree that was a bad decision. That decision was mostly based on social values at the time and "non-offense" of a certain portion of the population at the time. It was a bullshit interpretation and the court threw the Constitution out the window on that one.

Palko v. Connecticut was an issue based on a criminal case. You picked that case in a 14th Amendment argument?.... Not a great example of what we are talking about here because this case entered provisions guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Not a good case for this discussion.

My concern is the total blowing off of the 10th Amendment by the federal courts to suit their needs and to placate modern social mores. (e.g. Lawrence vs Texas as one of many examples)

Anything not addressed in the Constitution is the domain of the states. This has been trampled upon relentlessly for many years. Mostly to advance liberalism.

Maybe another successionist movement might be in order to wake up the federal government. The states have no rights left anymore other than that of taxation because of an out of control federal judiciary and that is wrong.

What's also wrong is that most people don't even realize this....