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

steve2470

(37,468 posts)
7. Thanks for your civil and informative reply
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 09:05 AM
Apr 2015

Apparently it was universally accepted that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. This goes to show that unless something is very clearly spelled out in a law or constitution, judges will find a way to interpret the law or constitution as narrowly as possible. I'm reminded of Scalia's method, using the dictionary to interpret words. Of course we all use dictionaries or legal dictionaries, but we need to also look at legislative intent, imho.

Thanks again.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»1833 SCOTUS: Barron v. Ba...»Reply #7