Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: raise your hand if you support protesting kavenaugh and his SC buddies everywhere they go [View all]PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)74. Actually they could (and sometimes did) but then...
the 14th Amendment was passed:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Over the years the courts, using the 14th Amendment, significantly changed the division of power between states and the federal government and extended the limitations of the Bill of Rights on the federal government to the states...
As explained by The Bill of Rights Institute ( https://billofrightsinstitute.org/lessons/the-fourteenth-amendment-and-incorporation ):
The Bill of Rights, setting limitations on Congress, originally applied only to the national government. In the effort to protect individual rights of the freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. It differs from every previous amendment because it limits what state governments may do. Over the next seventy-five years, the Courts use of the Fourteenth Amendment increased. It used the Due Process clause in that amendment to strike down many state laws and to selectively incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment so as to make them apply to states as well as the federal government. This practice, known as incorporation, increased the Supreme Courts power to define rights for the entire Union, and reduced the power of the states as compared to federal power. It also reduced the power of Congress as opposed to the Supreme Court, to define which rights are properly constitutional. This changed the meaning of the Bill of Rights from a series of limits on government power to a set of rights belonging to the individual and guaranteed by the federal government.
Also note that many states did incorporate in their own state constitutions protections similar to those found in the Bill of Rights prior to the 14th Amendment being passed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
180 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

raise your hand if you support protesting kavenaugh and his SC buddies everywhere they go [View all]
moonshinegnomie
Jul 2022
OP
I always think it is odd that even though this amendment specifically says NO LAW...ABRIDGING
LT Barclay
Jul 2022
#29
The first says "Congress shall make no law" - laws regulating speech and press were meant to be left
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#51
I don't read either that way. Congress established laws creating states. So if congress allowed
LT Barclay
Jul 2022
#56
Congress didn't "allow states to regulate speech". The states created Congress...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#59
by that logic, states could do anything to regulate speech. They could seize books,
LT Barclay
Jul 2022
#71
Well what a mess! But at least we're heading in the right direction. At this rate we'll have a
LT Barclay
Jul 2022
#179
You need to look up the phrase "well-regulated" and use sources from the time the phrase was used...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#89
A militia that functions effectively, that is a well trained one and equipped one. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#92
So, you're saying the "militia" referred to in the 2nd is in proper working order,
Higherarky
Jul 2022
#102
No. Lots of things hoped for by the writers of the Constitution aren't working as expected. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#103
That's adopting Scalia's view hook, line, and sinker. Have you forgotten John Paul Stevens' dissent?
MerryHolidays
Jul 2022
#161
Actually no, the Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on anti-abortion protests...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#53
No, you shouldn't "follow every recourse available", but only recourses that are effective...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2022
#61
If you're going to screw the people, don't expect to walk peaceably among them.
Gidney N Cloyd
Jul 2022
#14
"These people" protesting for the right of women to control their own bodies are not as
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#18
Lol. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's not that people here "aren't real
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#97
So you DO support this protest of Kavanaugh. Because it, too, has substantive
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#130
When someone claims that all protest is legitimate, you should tell them that.
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#164
And after all, we're all on tenterhooks to know if it gains your endorsement.
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#175
So? Is that what you'd tell MLK? He'd tell you back: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws
ancianita
Jul 2022
#27
There will be other cases that come up. They could perform their usual logical gymnastics and rule
LT Barclay
Jul 2022
#33
So don't protest because you don't want to upset them? This is what you're saying?
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#98
Didn't Thomas say something like; I'm going to spend the next 43 years making Liberal lives
panader0
Jul 2022
#22
Yup! And for that, he can go eat the steamiest bag of rancid dog shit imaginable!
Initech
Jul 2022
#26
Why don't wealthy Dems out PI's on R SCOTUS members like the Rs did to get rid of
Pepsidog
Jul 2022
#49
Just as they have made millions of lives miserable so should their families pay the price. The
Pepsidog
Jul 2022
#39
The next time they protest at a restaurant etc. they need to cover the back door too.
appleannie1
Jul 2022
#55
si. now he knows what it is like to face a line of protesters and has to retreat via
AllaN01Bear
Jul 2022
#58
Nope, it's dumb and creates sympathy for Kavanaugh and other such little fellers
gulliver
Jul 2022
#62
You don't think protest works, then? And what does this have to do with hatred?
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#114
All of which boils back down to "don't upset people." And I still disagree.
Scrivener7
Jul 2022
#165
Hey, they impacted the lives of so many of us in so many ways, why shouldn't they too, suffer
SWBTATTReg
Jul 2022
#87
Do NOT protest! Shower him with never-ending praise, prayers, preaching, and hymns.
keithbvadu2
Jul 2022
#141
Six yrs ago I suggested anytime trump or ANY maga or ANY repub go outdoors
Eliot Rosewater
Jul 2022
#143
Alito is the one. I keep hearing Kavenaugh but not Alito. He is the one who
patricia92243
Jul 2022
#158
how about take all that energy and help pregnant women get to a sane state when they need a ride
eShirl
Jul 2022
#159
No food, no gasoline for these people. They are not in the Constitution. /nt
bucolic_frolic
Jul 2022
#162
They deliberately and intentionally lied under oath and screwed half the country.
Initech
Jul 2022
#178