So what was the intent of the Bill of Rights? What exactly was it supposed to do?seamusTX wrote:The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution initially was not held to apply to the states. The states had their own bills of rights. Some of them defined rights more definitively than the federal constitution, and some less. For example, Massachusetts and Connecticut had official state religions for quite a while after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
When the 14th amendment (equal protection) was ratified, the Supreme Court began to rule that the federal bill of rights applied to state governments. However, they accomplished incorporation one issue at a time.
There has never been a definitive ruling about whether the 2nd amendment is incorporated or not. Presser v. Illinois is the most nearly relevant, but the SCOTUS essentially dodged the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Jim
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Chicago gun ban upheld by 7th Circuit Court”
- Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:13 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Chicago gun ban upheld by 7th Circuit Court
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1341
Re: Chicago gun ban upheld by 7th Circuit Court
- Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:45 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Chicago gun ban upheld by 7th Circuit Court
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1341
Re: Chicago gun ban upheld by 7th Circuit Court
What is the point of a Bill of Rights that applys only on the Federal level and not to the States that comprise the whole? I interpret this as saying that the Bill of Rights has as much legal standing as a State Resolution not to allow Dolphins to fly over waterpark airspace.