Comments on: 5 Reasons Supreme Court Justices Matter http://www.edgeblog.net/2009/supreme-court-justices-matter/ Notes from the edge Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:19:17 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: bill http://www.edgeblog.net/2009/supreme-court-justices-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-97582 bill Tue, 12 May 2009 19:28:51 +0000 http://www.edgeblog.net/?p=211#comment-97582 Russell, Thanks for the comment. I edited the text of my post to read "extend rights to emancipated slaves" instead of "abolish slavery" which is more accurate. Can we at least agree that the 20th century interpretation of the 14th has become so broad as to deny states the right to make decisions for their citizens that are best made at the state level, rather than the federal level? The balance has shifted WAY to far away from States rights. Russell,

Thanks for the comment. I edited the text of my post to read “extend rights to emancipated slaves” instead of “abolish slavery” which is more accurate. Can we at least agree that the 20th century interpretation of the 14th has become so broad as to deny states the right to make decisions for their citizens that are best made at the state level, rather than the federal level? The balance has shifted WAY to far away from States rights.

]]> By: Russell http://www.edgeblog.net/2009/supreme-court-justices-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-97580 Russell Tue, 12 May 2009 18:29:15 +0000 http://www.edgeblog.net/?p=211#comment-97580 The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th amendment was explicitly intended as a federal mechanism to restrict state law vis-a-vis individual rights. Its chief framer, John Bingham, was explicit that, among other things, it would incorporate the first eight amendments. 19th century courts interpreted it narrowly in that regard, and 20th century courts later broadened that. Narrowly or broadly, its intent from its framing was precisely to impose the federal government between what law states could write restricting individuals. Yes, the motive was the recently freed slaves. But it's simply wrong to the plain text and wrong to the original intent and historically inaccurate to say that the 14th wasn't intended to shift the federal balance. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th amendment was explicitly intended as a federal mechanism to restrict state law vis-a-vis individual rights. Its chief framer, John Bingham, was explicit that, among other things, it would incorporate the first eight amendments. 19th century courts interpreted it narrowly in that regard, and 20th century courts later broadened that. Narrowly or broadly, its intent from its framing was precisely to impose the federal government between what law states could write restricting individuals. Yes, the motive was the recently freed slaves. But it’s simply wrong to the plain text and wrong to the original intent and historically inaccurate to say that the 14th wasn’t intended to shift the federal balance.

]]>