Convention wisdom dictates that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that the federal government must ensure that the States properly protect the privileges and immunities of all citizens within their jurisdiction. The common belief is that in order to properly apply the clause, it means that in addition to all citizens being equally protected under any State law, the Bill of Rights, which was written originally to only be applied to the Federal Government, must also be applied to the States.
The insatiable appetite for truth by the folks that hold the position that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the States is commendable. I, too, share such a passion. As always, the positions designed to support their arguments, as presented to me more often than not by email, are well-thought out and well researched. However, my position is that the findings of the legislative body as a whole on the application of the Bill of Rights to the States is the final intention behind the clause. The Congress, as a whole, and the States, during the ratification process, rejected the author's, Representative Bingham's, position. The intent of the clause was not to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States.
My findings, however, go deeper than just the intention of the legislators and State ratifying conventions, regarding the issue. In fact, I believe that incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States actually assists the progressive movement.
The common assertion is that by applying the Bill of Rights to the States, it strengthens the rights of the individual because a piece of paper tells the States not to infringe on the person's rights. However, it actually creates the opposite effect. The Bill of Rights does not stop the government from infringing on people's rights. The Constitution does not stop the government from infringing on our rights, either. I am not questioning the wisdom of enumeration, but I do recognize the Bill of Rights itself created a condition that opened the door for the central government to dictate to the States what it is they can or cannot do. The purpose of the creation of the federal government was not to control the States, but to protect State Sovereignty, and their individuality.
As individuals, it is "our" responsibility to protect our rights. By applying the Bill Rights to the States, it creates two problems. First, it gives the citizen a false sense of security that their rights are protected by a piece of paper, which encourages them to be apathetic about protecting their rights themselves. Second, it enables the federal government the ability to force the States to abide by the Bill of Rights. If you allow the government to do this it then creates the opportunity for the federal government to dictate to the States the opposite, as well.
When a people are unwilling to fight for their own freedoms and rights, it encourages them to be uninformed. An uninformed populace is then easier to control, because they do not recognize tyranny as it begins to take over a system. The uninformed voters, in such a scenario, haven't been involved in acting as a check against the government, so they don't "know" that they are supposed to be a check against the government in the first place. Instead, the uninformed populace falls for the fallacy that the government was given the right to make sure the States were not being tyrannical. If the people no longer involve themselves in the process because the responsibility is given to the federal government through the incorporation of The Bill of Rights, the result is a tyrannical system, and a populace that allows it to happen through the sheer force of not participating in protecting their own rights.
I appreciate my opposition's passion on this issue, but I believe Congressman Bingham, who these folks most often quote, was of the mindset that the States misbehaved and had to be punished for daring to secede. The power of secession is a valuable tool for protecting State Sovereignty. The States must have the right to opt out of the social contract of the Constitution if the other party, the federal government, has breached that contract by exerting control over the States through a process of ignoring the Constitution, or "interpreting" it in such a manner that they assert they have the right to dictate to the States on issues that are supposed to be reserved to State authority.
We must remember that the discussions in the debates, such as is provided by The Congressional Globe of that era, regarding this issue, are not the final say if not taken in proper context. In the debates there are many arguments presented on both sides of the issue. Our task is to determine what the overall intention was, and what position best represents the collective intention of the legislature and ratifying bodies in general, as well as what best fits into the intent of the Founding Fathers. In the end, we must understand that our rights are best protected by us. The enumeration of such rights was only to put in writing so as to ensure the rule of law was to be more likely to be followed. History shows that when the law is in writing, it is more likely to be accepted as the legal standard. The defense of those rights still, regardless of the fact that they are enumerated in the Constitution, is a responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of the people.
They are your rights, and it is up to you to protect them.
The common assertion is that by applying the Bill of Rights to the States, it strengthens the rights of the individual because a piece of paper tells the States not to infringe on the person's rights. However, it actually creates the opposite effect. The Bill of Rights does not stop the government from infringing on people's rights. The Constitution does not stop the government from infringing on our rights, either. I am not questioning the wisdom of enumeration, but I do recognize the Bill of Rights itself created a condition that opened the door for the central government to dictate to the States what it is they can or cannot do. The purpose of the creation of the federal government was not to control the States, but to protect State Sovereignty, and their individuality.
As individuals, it is "our" responsibility to protect our rights. By applying the Bill Rights to the States, it creates two problems. First, it gives the citizen a false sense of security that their rights are protected by a piece of paper, which encourages them to be apathetic about protecting their rights themselves. Second, it enables the federal government the ability to force the States to abide by the Bill of Rights. If you allow the government to do this it then creates the opportunity for the federal government to dictate to the States the opposite, as well.
When a people are unwilling to fight for their own freedoms and rights, it encourages them to be uninformed. An uninformed populace is then easier to control, because they do not recognize tyranny as it begins to take over a system. The uninformed voters, in such a scenario, haven't been involved in acting as a check against the government, so they don't "know" that they are supposed to be a check against the government in the first place. Instead, the uninformed populace falls for the fallacy that the government was given the right to make sure the States were not being tyrannical. If the people no longer involve themselves in the process because the responsibility is given to the federal government through the incorporation of The Bill of Rights, the result is a tyrannical system, and a populace that allows it to happen through the sheer force of not participating in protecting their own rights.
I appreciate my opposition's passion on this issue, but I believe Congressman Bingham, who these folks most often quote, was of the mindset that the States misbehaved and had to be punished for daring to secede. The power of secession is a valuable tool for protecting State Sovereignty. The States must have the right to opt out of the social contract of the Constitution if the other party, the federal government, has breached that contract by exerting control over the States through a process of ignoring the Constitution, or "interpreting" it in such a manner that they assert they have the right to dictate to the States on issues that are supposed to be reserved to State authority.
We must remember that the discussions in the debates, such as is provided by The Congressional Globe of that era, regarding this issue, are not the final say if not taken in proper context. In the debates there are many arguments presented on both sides of the issue. Our task is to determine what the overall intention was, and what position best represents the collective intention of the legislature and ratifying bodies in general, as well as what best fits into the intent of the Founding Fathers. In the end, we must understand that our rights are best protected by us. The enumeration of such rights was only to put in writing so as to ensure the rule of law was to be more likely to be followed. History shows that when the law is in writing, it is more likely to be accepted as the legal standard. The defense of those rights still, regardless of the fact that they are enumerated in the Constitution, is a responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of the people.
They are your rights, and it is up to you to protect them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment