Rand Paul vs. Ron Paul on the Meaning of the Constitution

During his big speech yesterday at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) repeatedly highlighted the Republican Party’s central role in drafting and ratifying the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. While it’s not exactly a groundbreaking position nowadays to come out in favor of the 13th or 15th Amendments, Paul’s endorsement of the 14th is a more notable story.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment declares, “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.” That language empowers the federal courts to review the actions of state and local governments, and to strike down any such actions that violate fundamental rights, including those rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. As Ohio Congressman John Bingham, the author of the words quoted above, explained in a speech to the House of Representatives, the rights protected by the 14th Amendment “are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution.”

Put simply, the 14th Amendment protects individuals against overreaching state and local governments. Here’s how Rand Paul summarized his views on that amendment yesterday at Howard:

Many Republicans do believe that decentralization of power is the best policy, that government is more efficient, more just, and more personal when it is smaller and more local.

But Republicans also realize that there are occasions of such egregious injustice that require federal involvement, and that is precisely what the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act were intended to do--protect citizens from state and local tyranny.

That position is consistent with the text and history of the 14th Amendment. But it differs dramatically from the interpretation of the same amendment favored by Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul.

In 2005, for example, shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its notorious decision in the eminent domain case Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court allowed a local government to seize private property on behalf of a private developer, Ron Paul argued that while the property should not have been taken, “the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states.” According to Ron Paul, “The issue in the Kelo case is the legality of the eminent domain action under Connecticut law, not federal law. Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property, but the fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level.” As for the idea that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states, Ron Paul declared, “we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases.”

So while Rand Paul says that the 14th Amendment was designed to “protect citizens from state and local tyranny,” Ron Paul thinks the federal courts have no business enforcing the 14th Amendment at all.

This is not a mere academic difference. Consider the issue of gun rights. Under Ron Paul’s preferred approach, the Supreme Court would never have decided the landmark 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago, where the majority held that the Second Amendment applies to the states and therefore struck down Chicago’s handgun ban. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has praised McDonald as an example of individual rights properly triumphing over majority rule.

Time will tell if this is the only major difference over the meaning of the Constitution we'll find between father and son.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I still don't know why Reason is still covering that hateful homophobic bigot.

  • SugarFree||

    Letting you comment is not really "covering" you.

  • bon829||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, mojo50.com

  • tarran||

    As a public service to all who come here, particularly newcomers, I would like to assure you that any thought you might entertain as to sarcasmic's sexuality not being 100% hetero is wrong.

    Sarcasmic isn't gay. At all. He likes women who are feminine and the fact that some might be mistaken for adolescent boys at first is merely an unfortunate coincidence.

    Sarcasmic is not attracted to men at all, and is not even 0.0001% gay. He has never looked at another man and said, "Damn!".

    I hope that I have made myself completely and forcefully clear as to how heterosexual sarcasmic is. I feel this is important because it very clearly matters to him that everyone knows that he is not gay... and I feel that, sarcasmic being a long-time member of our community, he should have this request honored.

  • sarcasmic||

    He has never looked at another man and said, "Damn!".

    That is so not true.

    Damn!

  • JW||

    I, for one, welcome our new bi-confused overlords.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Bi-curious, JW. Bi-curious.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Suck a bag of dicks.

  • crystal415||

    upto I looked at the receipt 4 $8417, I did not believe that my cousin was truley earning money parttime from there labtop.. there sisters neighbour has been doing this 4 only about 1 year and just now took care of the depts on there condo and bourt a top of the range Buick. we looked here, fab22.com

  • ||

    So what you're sayin' is...

    ...sarc is hetero?

    Unpossible.

  • John Galt||

    Tyranny by the majority is no less unjust than tyranny courtesy of a minority.

  • fried wylie||

    protect subject citizens from to a Fairer National Tyranny, rather than Unequal state and local tyranny.

  • CE||

    3000 tyrants one mile away, or one tyrant 3000 miles away? Or something like that.

  • Cyto||

    The problem with Paul the Elder's position is that an amendment to the constitution is constitutional by definition. It must be enforced by the federal government. If we agree with Paul the Elder that it is a violation of federalism, we should change the constitution. The black letter of the constitution will always trump philosophical undergirdings such as federalism. Ignoring the plain text of the constitution is what we have right now, and you can see where that is getting us.

  • UCrawford||

    Agreed. This was one of the primary reasons I leapt off the Ron Paul bandwagon back in 2008. He claims to be a supporter of the Constitution, but then seems to believe that the Constitution stops after the first ten amendments. Even if you don't agree with everything in the Constitution, that doesn't change the validity of an amendment to it so long as it followed proper procedure in ratification. In his own way, Paul's no different from the liberal or conservative politicians who pick and choose which laws they think they have to obey or are limited by.

    And of course Paul's newsletters and ridiculous attacks on the validity of the Civil War, combined with his hostility towards the 14th Amendment, led me to believe that he was not the kind of politician I wanted to support. I'm glad to see that his son seems to have taken a different path and so far I'm tentatively supportive of him.

  • ||

    Me too. His statements on how federal courts should not have struck down Texas sodomy laws revealed that he preferenced his ungrounded interpretation of federalism over individual rights and liberty. The 14th Amendment basically rolled back the 10th Amendment as a blank check to states, which is a good thing from a libertarian perspective.

  • Virginian||

    The 14th Amendment basically rolled back the 10th Amendment as a blank check to states, which is a good thing from a libertarian perspective.

    A leviathan federal government with no structural check is a now libertarian?

  • ||

    The states had a structural check in the Senate and the Amendment process itself until the 17th. And they also retained the authority not restricted them by the Constitution or The People. So, unless there is a problem with the First through Thirteenth Amendments, to answer your question, yes. The federal government didn't really become a leviathan until they started ignoring the Constitution which is to its greatest degree a 20th century issue.

  • robc||

    The 17th amendment will be the death of the United States.

    I doubt history will report it that way, but history will be wrong.

  • Zenjuris||

    I would back up one amendment and argue that the beginning of the federal leviathan was the 16th Amendment (although the 17th further eroded federalism). The 16th enabled the federal government to bribe states with the money of their own residents.

  • Virginian||

    Since those two, plus Prohibition and the 19th Amendment all passed at the same time, it's hard to isolate which is the key.

    The 16th gave the feds the money they needed. A hundred years ago, DC was a backwater, respected by no one. Now it's an imperial capital in all but name.

    The 17th took away the ability of state politicians to hamstring the federal government.

    The 18th, I would argue, accustomed Americans to federal agents, sweeping police powers, and trampling of constitutional rights in the name of some unspeakable social horror.

    I used to think the 19th was a real issue as well. Women in general prize security over liberty, for a host of reasons. There is a reason that the rallying cry of the statists in this century has been "for the children". So I do think women's suffrage was a factor. I've become less strident about this, because even if the 19th hadn't passed, we'd still be in the mess because of the 16th and the 17th. But I do think it was a factor, if not the biggest or the decisive one.

  • Zenjuris||

    If you had the power to repeal either the 16th or the 17th, but not both, which would you choose?

  • Virginian||

    The 16th. If they didn't have the income tax, they couldn't fund it. Excise taxes, tariffs, etc. are all much more easily circumvented then federal withholding. It just wouldn't be possible to maintain Leviathan without the income tax.

  • Zenjuris||

    Hence my belief that the 16th is the root to the federal leviathan. We'd still be in the same mess today if the 17th were never passed. Once the priority of a member of Congress became maximizing the federal revenues that would be spent in his state, the concept of federalism was lost. I don't think the senators elected by state legislatures today would be different from the senators elected directly by the populace. Ironically, the 17th now makes possible the election of someone outside the party establishment.

  • DarrenM||

    The 16th. If they didn't have the income tax, they couldn't fund it.

    In the current environment, I'm not sure an amendment would be necessary for the Federal government to implement an income tax. I'm sure the courts would find some way to justify it.

  • robc||

    If you had the power to repeal either the 16th or the 17th, but not both, which would you choose?

    The 17th, but its close.

    Honestly, the two go together. 1913 was a horrible year for amendments.

  • Calidissident||

    How was the 17th such a great check on federal tyranny? The state legislatures were the ones pushing Congress to pass it, and ratified it once they did. They voluntarily gave up their power. You would seriously rather see that repealed than the income tax?

  • grey||

    Informative conversation as an addition to the original article, thanks.

  • Robert||

    But at the time of the previous Sup. Ct. ruling upholding an anti-sodomy law, no less a libertarian legal scholar than Henry Mark Holzer wrote that that ruling was correct -- unfortunate but correct.

  • yonemoto||

    as did Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas went so far as to say that if he were in the texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law.

  • CE||

    So you were okay with Prohibition when it passed?

  • ||

    Who says you have to be OK with an amendment to find it Constitutional? Shitty and something that should be amended to remove, sure, but it was Constitutional until it was repealed.

  • np||

    Looking purely at the letter of the Constitution without the philosophical underpinnings as expressed by the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, can work both ways though. I think the leviathan state we have right now is exactly due ignoring original intent and only focusing on the letter of the Constitution.

    Due to flawed writing, and not officially including those papers that built its foundation, it allows interpreting it in ways that transform it from few, enumerated government powers and unlimited rights, to few, enumerated rights and unlimited government powers:

    "See, we can fit this interpretation into the letter of the document, therefore, it IS constitutional!"

    Jefferson was already decrying the end of the American experiment in his later years:

    "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape in any form they please."

    "I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifices of themselves by the generation of '76 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I shall not live to see it."

    I used to be into the Constitution myself. Now I see his point above and think Lysander Spooner nailed it

  • ||

    Meh. I would love to ask Jefferson if he thought the Louisiana Purchase was constitutional.

    He can blame his founding cohorts for the courts. Article 3 is some pretty weak tea. I don't think it was given nearly enough thought. It would have been nice to see an enumeration of powers rather than a blanket, "you guys oversee everything legal." With a charter like that, how could they NOT have seen a huge power grab?

  • Calidissident||

    I think the Louisiana Purchase was covered by the treaty clause

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If you're going to talk about the history of the 14th Amendment, then you need to include the history of the federal shennanigans under which it was considered to be ratified that were actually not in compliance with the Constitutional requirements for doing so.

  • ||

    That's practically a birther argument. It's there. It's a moot point how it got there. All that's really left to argue is Original Meaning.

  • CE||

    Following the law is moot point? Since when?

  • DarrenM||

    It's a moot point how it got there.

    If an amendment was simply declared to have been ratified, but had not followed proper procedures, this is fare from moot. By accepting it, we'd be tacitly agreeing that it was ok to do the same thing again. The consitution becomes meaningless if it can be 'amended' (explicitly or implicitly) at will.

  • ||

    the phony incorporation

    Does he ever actually make a case here for why it is "phony"? Or does he simply state it as an obvious fact of the Universe?

  • Killazontherun||

    I personally support the 14A (as an ancap Constitutionalism has no philosophical merit, merely practical for binding a state to some degree), but Conservatives have blinders on about just how radical it is as well as the radical nature of the politics of theRepublicans who came to power after the Civil War. 14A was meant to be expansive. I'm not sure if Ron Paul has brought this up personally, but I know his political allies have questions about wether or not 14A was ever properly ratified. In fact, I have had exchanges with Lew Rockwell on this subject, and I admit he had the better of the technical argument due to some states rescinding their support before the two thirds majority of states was reached.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I admit he had the better of the technical argument due to some states rescinding their support before the two thirds majority of states was reached"

    Thats' true but there was a lot more going on besides that.

    I found this recap of events in 1867/68:

    http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

  • Killazontherun||

    Thanks! That would have definitely been useful for my previous discussion.

  • UCrawford||

    Interesting link. Doesn't change my support of the 14th Amendment, but definitely adds some context to the arguments of those opposed to it so I can understand their positions. Thank you.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I am not opposed to what the 14th is supposed to do: apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government.

    In fact, I think ALL levels of government should have been as restricted in their powers as as it was originally intended for the federal government to be from the very start of the country. Leave almost everything up to freedom of contract in the private sector.

    But if there is going to a Constitutional discssion of the 14th Amendment, it's certainly pertinent to point out the Constitutionally questionable gyrations tha were undertaken to declare it ratified.

  • UCrawford||

    It's pertinent in an overall debate, I agree. But at this point, I consider the issue to be as academic as the argument that the 16th Amendment isn't valid. Neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court is invalidating it, it's used as a Constitutional rationale in the SCOTUS' cases, so debating its validity is not particularly useful or relevant to its application today,

    And, as you said, it serves an important purpose, so I wouldn't want it to go away.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    Amendment XIV, section 4

    You really a fan?

  • UCrawford||

    Sure, why not? I'm not a neo-Confederate and I had no problem at all with the Civil War from the North's perspective. I've never accepted the argument that the states have a right to secede from the Union and since the only meaningful right the southern states were fighting for was the right to own slaves, I don't have any sympathy for their position specifically.

    I don't have a problem with the federal government crushing armed insurrection when the insurrectionists are violating others' natural rights.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I've never accepted the argument that the states have a right to secede from the Union "

    The proper question is whether the federal government had (and has) any delegated power that permits it to prevent a state from seceding from the Union.

    The 10th Amendment confines the federal government to enumerated powers. There is no explicitly enumerated power that delegates any power to the federal government to prevent any state from seceding from the union.

    What reason a state may have for wanting to do so has no bearing on whether the federal government has any legitimate authority to prevent it or not.

    South Carolina threatened to secede back when Andrew Jackson was president over a matter of taxation.

    Three states, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island explicitly reserved the right to secede from the union at the time they ratified the Constitution.

  • durron597||

    This is why Rand Paul is a realistic candidate for President, whereas his father was never going to get more than 5% of the vote.

    I support incorporation... Ron Paul does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I....._of_Rights

    I #StandWithRand.

  • Johnimo||

    The old man is a mean-spirited, Truther-loving, bad person. Rand is on the right track.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I like the notion of the Constitution as providing a sort of "ceiling" on restrictions of our rights. Unfortunately, this is a fringe view and plainly unserious.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Constitution is a charter of unlimited powers and enumerated rights.

  • ||

    We need a serious Ninther movement.

  • ||

    9&10;. The forgotten amendments.

  • ||

    Nah, there's a sizeable tenther movement which unfortunately seems to oppose the 14th Amendment incorporation. I think there is still merit in arguing that the 10th Amendment now devolves all powers not enumerated to the federal government (and, via incorporation, the state governments) to the people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    “the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states.”

    Seriously?

    Ron, I am disappoint.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If the Fifth does not apply to the states, is torture (at the local level) legal?

  • CE||

    Only if that state's official church does it.

  • TheIronSheik||

    Still complaining about Kelo? It was the logical conclusion of a series of cases dating back before the revolution. It might have been bad policy to do it in Connecticut, but it is the same as Massachusetts giving the exclusive right to a corporation to build a bridge over the Charles River.

    And lol at thinking A5 doesn't apply against the states.

  • GroundTruth||

    Hey, if this is the big difference, and it means the Younger is even more pro-Liberty than the Elder, and the Elder is pretty much done anyway, what's the beef? The Elder was the best at the moment, the Younger truly is better!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "...Ron Paul thinks the federal courts have no business enforcing the 14th Amendment at all."

    I don't say I agree with his position, but let's state it correctly. He rejects the incorporation doctrine - the idea that the 14th Amendment requires the states to obey the Bill of Rights (or at least the first eight or nine amendments).

    The Supreme Court has historically rejected this doctrine, too. It repeatedly has rejected full-on incorporation. At the same time, it has piecemeal incorporated most of the B of R, but that was a comparatively recent process. The Second Amendment was only incorporated a couple years ago. The protection against double jeopardy was only incorporated in 1969. And so on.

    They still haven't incorporated the Fifth Amendment right to have a grand jury consider your case, or the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in certain civil cases.

    So, no, the incorporation doctrine isn't equivalent to the Fourteenth Amendment - you can support one without supporting the other.

  • wwhorton||

    I get what Ron's saying, but, at a certain point, if the Constitution doesn't protect citizens from states gone wild I think it stops serving a lot of its useful purpose. I mean, if all the Constitution does is stop the federal government from, say, quartering troops in your home, but 50 states pass amendments endorsing, I don't know, state police commandeering your couch at will for an afternoon nap, then what's the point?

    I mean, yay decentralization and so forth, but a collection of smaller tyrant states is effectively the same as one large tyrant state. I've always thought that the Constitution is a top-to-bottom proscription against government naughtiness, not just a leash on the fed itself.

  • Zeb||

    I agree. It would be great if all the federal government did was keep the states from violating peoples rights, maintain a defensive military and do whatever it is that needs to be done at national borders.

  • CE||

    Can we have an Anti-Cop-Shoot-Dog amendment?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I mean, yay decentralization and so forth, but a collection of smaller tyrant states is effectively the same as one large tyrant state.

    I think I'd be fine with full-bore incorporation. But I still disagree with above statement.

    50 small tyrannies is still better than one giant one. Still leaves room for competition or what a progressive would call a "race to the bottom".

  • Brandon||

    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.

    I can't disagree with this, and I think one of the few duties of the federal government should be to prevent the states from violating the rights of individuals. However, I fail to see in this text any justification for affirmative action or forcing homophobic florists to serve gay weddings at gunpoint.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Have you checked the penumbras?

  • ||

    "However, I fail to see in this text any justification for affirmative action or forcing homophobic florists to serve gay weddings at gunpoint."

    And nobody said it did. Pretty much all the libertarian gay marriage proponents here would oppose the government forcing private businesses and churches to recognize gay (or any) marriage.

  • Brandon||

    That's pretty much what I'm saying. I don't see why people would have a problem with the 14th amendment itself, other than its questionable ratification, because there is no logical connection between "the state cannot discriminate" and "Individuals aren't allowed to make anyone of a certain politically convenient class fell bad."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There is actually a school of thought that the 14th Amendment can be used by the courts against private discrimination. The USSC showed some brief sympathy with that idea in the 1960s, produced some bad decisions, then retreated from this bad doctrine. But you still have cases where voters aren't allowed to legalize private discrimination because their motives for doing so are considered improper.

  • Zeb||

    I fail to see in this text any justification for affirmative action or forcing homophobic florists to serve gay weddings at gunpoint.

    If anything it says just the opposite.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Anybody else think the 14th amendment sucks? And I don't think it sucks because of what I think its intent was. And hypothetically, let's just say I'm neutral on federalism and incorporation.

    I think it sucks because it's shittily written and ambiguous. I get mad at courts for ignoring plain-folk meaning of the constitution in favor of their nuanced esoteric penumbras. But I really can't blame them for having to make shit up on the spot and glue it to random precedents for interpreting the 14th, because it seems obvious that it is supposed to actually do something, but if they wanted "full incorporation", they should have said so. If they just wanted certain privileges and immunities to extend to certain people they should have specified which ones and who got them. Almost like they had to pass it to find out what was in it (or what it actually meant).

  • Zeb||

    I don't know that I'd say it sucks, but I agree with you about the vagueness. A lot of the constitution suffers from that. What I wonder is why so vague? Was it necessary to get everyone to agree on it, or did they just like being all sparse and poetic?

  • Brandon||

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...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."

    I think it should've been shorter.

  • np||

    Well, it's better than the original, since the original states privileges and immunities, which are arbitrary things that are granted, rather than rights.

    But I'd go further:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, unless such a person has deprived another of life, liberty, or property

    The End.

    The "without due process of law" is a weasel clause:

    We can't outright seize your property, but hey, we have a law against blighted properties... and your property is looking pretty blighted there..

  • np||

    To be honest though, even this is not enough. Life, liberty, and property needs to be well defined in a negative rights fashion.

    That it's not is also the reason why we have 99% positive law doctrine and legal positivist system.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    vagueness == more power for enforcers

    clarity == less power, and less need to use it

  • juliusaugustus||

    The Constitution is legally null and void. The lieber code puts the US in a state of emergency. The DC organic act turns the US into a corporation. The trading with the enemy act makes us enemies to the US government. Social Security makes you collateral to us national debt. The Federal Reserve is used to financially enslave you and used by the government put you in debt. The IRS is a private puerto rico based corporation registered in the state of delaware. The US is in a state of corporate martial law.

  • Zeb||

    Interesting.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Do you have a newsletter?

  • juliusaugustus||

    newsletter?

  • ||

    Yes, something we may subscribe to.

  • DarrenM||

    We can rename the country to the Umbrella Corporation.

  • Sam Grove||

    Government is good whenever it defends individual liberty, bad when it does the opposite.

  • Whahappan?||

    So, government is mostly bad.

  • Tony||

    So since healthcare is essential to individual liberty, it's good when government subsidizes it. Or is it the narrow, specific libertarian definition of liberty (I get my police and courts, and you can take your tumor and fuck off and die) you're referring to?

  • ||

    $

  • Brandon||

    since healthcare is essential to individual liberty...

    Question-begging. At least you're mixing up your fallacies.

  • Calidissident||

    Since when do libertarians argue that only they should benefit from police or courts?

  • ||

    $

  • L13||

    Tony, actually, no, you could have purchased insurance when you were healthy, but chose not to, so now it's one your head. If you were truly so indigent that you could not afford it (and the devil will be in the details on that one) then perhaps we could have a fund to support folks like you, but there would have to be a give and take... like, you don't vote and you don't breed, until you're solvent again and have paid off your past loans.

  • Tony||

    RP is such a better politician than RP.

  • Kroneborge||

    " As for the idea that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states, Ron Paul declared, “we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases.”"

    Well the good doctor can't be right on everything, and he's certainly wrong on this

  • Robert||

    I agree with him on the incoporation doctrine in that I don't see that the federal BoR should be the be-all and end-all. Its language doesn't square well with that of the 14th, so I don't think the 14th should be interpreted that way. It is supposed to be a federal guarantee against state depriv'ns of liberty, but I think what a depriv'n of liberty is needs to be judged irrespective of what the 1st 10 amendments say.

    So, for instance, the 1st amendment can comfortably be incorporated except the establishment clause, because state establishment of a church could only be taken as a depriv'n of liberty if taxation is so taken, which it obviously is not, according to the rest of the constitut'n. The states have long since disestablished their churches and have their own non-establishment clauses in their constitutions.

    But there's lots of stuff not in the federal BoR that could easily be construed as depriv'ns of liberty, so the 14th could easily be seen as giving broader protections than the federal BoR, and possibly some protections that are not in the constitutions of particular states, or any states.

  • Juice||

    That attempt at "outreach" failed big time, by the way.

  • jordanjerry||

    my roomate's step-mother makes $70 every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her pay check was $14503 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here's the site to read more and go to home tab for more detail--- big76.ℂom

  • gaoxiaen||

    The IRS is watching you.

  • harleyborgais||

    The Federal (Central, national) govt. (Whitehouse/alphabet agencies=executive, congress=legislative branches) HAS NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON D.C.s 10-mile square!
    (Art.1, Sec.9).

    The US Constitution (Art.5) and US Supreme Court case Norton Vs Shelby County (And others) clearly state: any legislation contradicting the US Constitution is null and void. The 14th says no state may enforce any such law.

    Art.2, Sec.4 says any officer in govt. convicted of even a misdemeanor crime is removed from office (crime=harm caused to another without proper consent...NOT disobeying imposed rules -our duty under Declaration of Independence).

    Also, insurrection against the US after swearing an oath to support it permanently removes ones eligibility for office (14th).

    Treason is defined as: only in levying War against our United States, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. So we need an official definition for 'enemy to the United States'...thats not too hard:
    Any party or entity that intentionally causes Harm (Injury, loss, or detriment) to the United States of America is an enemy.

    (An official definition: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/.....g-232.html)

    So, the states cannot make or enforce any laws that violate the Supreme Law of our land (US Constitution), and the US Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) is the only entity who can deal with such issues, and only in accordance with Constitutional laws.

  • Marcus75||

    my classmate's mother-in-law makes $88 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her check was $13262 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.wow92.com

  • gaoxiaen||

    I'm turning you in to the IRS.

  • Ecdysis||

    The incorporation doctrine (which incorporates because of the "due process" clause) is most certainly wrong from an orginalist interpretation. The privileges and immunities clause - well, that's a different story. Surely the first 8 amendments apply to the states, but not for the reasons Progressive judges has done. This may seem like an esoteric argument, but it leads to sloppy reasoning for really bad Court decisions. Its like playing telephone with the language of Constitution.

  • joeedick||

    uptil I looked at the check that said $5465, I didn't believe that...my... best friend woz like they say actualie erning money part-time from their computer.. there neighbor had bean doing this 4 only nine months and at present repaid the morgage on their condo and got themselves a Lotus Carlton. read more at, -- Gig60.ℂOM

  • XM||

    If I recall correctly, Ron Paul is against the 14th amendment in general, because it punishes private business for selective hiring.

    The 14th amendment is unenforceable, if you think about it. Who's going to stop a Vietnamese noodle shop owner from rejecting black applicants because he thinks he might be in a gang? Or hiring women based on their looks?

  • donettagreenhill||

    If you think Gladys`s story is flabbergasting,, won weak-ago my daughter basically also made $8013 working a fourty hour month in their apartment and they're best friend's step-aunt`s neighbour done this for 9-months and actually earnt more than $8013 in there spare time at there pc. follow the tips available here... and go to home tab for more detail--- http://goo.gl/imRPf

  • William Barker||

    Or... it could simply be that Ron Paul's position on Kelo doesn't consistently cut across other issues.

    (*SHRUG*)

    Seriously... the author assumes that both men are 100% intellectually consistent in their views. In the real world, most people aren't; even the best of us have "exceptions" within our philosophies which contradict core beliefs.

  • Conrad97||

    like Jason answered I am stunned that a student able to get paid $8143 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you look at this web page http://www.wow92.com

  • SteveTX||

    Mr. Root makes the argument that the Supreme Court would not have decided the McDonald case based on the way Ron Paul views the 14th Amendment. I think the problem is how the Court justified their decision. Because the federal government thinks it has the right to negate the 2nd Amendment, it has to use the 14th as justification for striking down State laws regarding gun control. In reality the supremacy clause in Article Six and the 2nd Amendment was all that was needed to decide both McDonald and Heller. When the federal government stops ignoring the true intent of the 2nd Amendment gun control as an issue goes away. If you don't like it amended the Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" is open to interpretation by federal, state or local governments?

  • Aaron867||

    just as Lee answered I cant believe that a mother able to earn $4919 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you read this page http://www.wow92.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement