dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (01/08/86)
[] >> >Meese has also claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the >> >States. >> >> If Meese is out to dismantle the Bill of Rights, then he deserves contempt. >> But, while he may not have been prudent in making such a statement, he >> was not altogether incorrect. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constiution >> starts out with, "Congress shall make no law ...". This is the U. S. >> Congress; no such restriction is mentioned here concerning the State >> level. If you want protection at the State level, then you should use >> what is provided in the Constitution of that state. >> >> > tim sevener whuxn!orb >> David Olson >That is not true, Dave. The 14th Amendment provided that the rights >afforded by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment itself would >apply to *all Americans* irrespective of State. Apples and oranges, Tim. We were not talking about the 14th amendment, but the Bill of Rights; they are separate. Besides, nowhere in the 14th does it even mention the Bill of Rights. I may not have been entirely correct when I said you would have to go to the Constitution of the separate state for protection at the state level, since the 14th does indeed provide restrictions of the states. But, while the 14th augments the Bill of Rights, that does not change the fact that the restrictions in the First Amendment apply to the the U. S. Congress. The mere fact that there IS a 14th Amendment proves that the Bill of Rights is *not sufficient of itself* to guarantee its rights at all levels. Please note: I am not saying that people do not have Constitutional rights; only that they should know what those rights are and what backs them up. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere