Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Second Amendment

The Bill Of Rights And The States

Wednesday, July 28, 1999

Once viewed by Chief Justice John Marshall
as a check against excesses of the federal government
alone, the safeguards of the Bill of Rights
have been gradually, almost fitfully,
extended over state powers by
the Supreme Court.



At the time the Constitution was adopted, many of its drafters felt no need to enumerate specific individual rights since the national government could exercise only the limited powers delegated to it in the Constitution. The limited powers of the federal government assured the freedom of the individual from federal interference, as that government could not oppress where it was already forbidden to act. However, there were enough objectors to ratification of the Constitution that a compromise was struck by enacting a Bill of Rights.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1791, constitute the Bill of Rights. Its sole purpose was to protect the individual against acts of the federal government. In 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall held in Barron v. Baltimore that the guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights were a limitation only on the federal government. The result was a lack of federal constitutional protection of the individual against the acts of state governments (other than a few individual rights guaranteed in the body of the Constitution proper).

The post Civil War enactments of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments changed this situation. These amendments were enacted specifically to bar discrimination by states against individuals, especially the newly freed slaves. The drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that its "Privileges and Immunities" clause would be the means for protecting these rights from state government interference.

However, in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1872), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, gave the "Privileges and Immunities" clause a very narrow reading. The Court held that the clause prohibited states merely from infringing upon the rights of national citizenship--those rights peculiar to an individual`s relationship to the federal government. Justice Miller held that the fundamental civil rights of the individual were derived from state law and constitutions and not the federal government.

The dissenting opinion objected by pointing out that the 14th Amendment was designed to guarantee freedom and equality to the recently emancipated slaves, and that the "Privileges and Immunities" clause was to protect these rights against infringement by state governments. The majority`s holding would, in effect, add no more protection than existed prior to the adoption of the Amendment, thus making the clause meaningless. Although the dissenters in the Slaughterhouse Cases held that the "Privileges and Immunities" clause guaranteed the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens against infringement by the states, the majority`s opinion has prevailed to this day, and the clause remains limited to a few rights of national citizenship. (Examples of such national rights include the right to interstate travel and the right to vote in national elections.)

Instead of the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment became the means by which various rights found in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" and made binding on state governments. This has occurred through a process of "Selective Incorporation"--a process which provides few guidelines or boundaries as to what is a "fundamental right" protected from state government infringement by "incorporation" through the "Due Process" clause. Furthermore, the "Selective Incorporation" view rejects the "Total Incorporation" approach, which holds that the entire Bill of Rights is incorporated through the 14th Amendment and made effective against state action.

"Selective Incorporation" has resulted in judges and courts interpreting the term "liberty" found in the 14th Amendment without regard to the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Only those liberties found in the Bill of Rights which a judge finds to be "fundamental" are selectively incorporated via the 14th Amendment and thereby protected against state interference. In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Cardozo held that the test was whether the Bill of Rights guarantee in question is of "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and one of the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." Thus, the Court defined rights as being of two classes: fundamental principles of liberty which would be incorporated through the 14th Amendment and made effective against states, and "not so fundamental" rights which would not be incorporated.

Furthermore, the selective incorporationists have held that the fundamental rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment and protected against state interference are not limited to what is found in the Bill of Rights. In Adamson v. California (1947), Justice Frankfurter, in his concurring opinion, stated that the 14th Amendment "Due Process" clause has an "independent potency" of its own, which must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis by examining whether the challenged governmental action offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." Thus, in In Re Winship (1970), the Supreme Court held that the requirement that the government provide "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, was binding in state trials, as it was one of the "essentials of due process and fair treatment," even though there is no specific provision in the Bill of Rights which imposes such requirement.

Dissenting in Adamson v. California, Justice Black attacked the majority`s "fundamental rights" approach as permitting the Court to act as a super legislature enforcing its own social and moral theories and goals, leaving citizens without assured rights and granting the Court an unauthorized power to define protected rights at will. Justice Black argued that the 14th Amendment, taken as a whole, required the application of the entire Bill of Rights to the states. Such "Total Incorporation" would protect all of the guarantees specified in the Bill of Rights against adverse state government action, enhancing judicial objectivity and greater certainty, while conforming to the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. There is persuasive evidence that the 14th Amendment`s framers intended "Total Incorporation."

While the "Selective Incorporation" theory has been applied by the Supreme Court, the test used to determine whether a right is fundamental has changed. Where Justice Cardozo incorporated only those particular guarantees in the Bill of Rights which were "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and which, if violated, would "shock the conscience of mankind," the Warren Court went further by incorporating any guarantee, whether explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights or not, which was "fundamental in the context of the [judicial] process maintained by the American states" or "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," even though a "fair and enlightened system of justice" did not necessarily require it.

The Supreme Court muddied the waters further by holding in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) that a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is a fundamental right. Though the Court did not specifically overrule the concept of "Selective Incorporation," this holding may signal the Supreme Court`s approval of the "Total Incorporation" approach.

Under the process of "Selective Incorporation," most of the principal guarantees of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated and made applicable to the states. Provisions that have not yet been incorporated include the Third and Seventh Amendments, the right
TRENDING NOW
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Ignores Heller: No Protection for Guns It Deems “Dangerous”

News  

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Ignores Heller: No Protection for Guns It Deems “Dangerous”

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in Heller and McDonald, many of the lower U.S. courts have been making up their own rules when it comes to the Second Amendment. Tuesday’s outrageous opinion by ...

Hawaii: Anti-Gun Legislation Passes Committee

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Hawaii: Anti-Gun Legislation Passes Committee

SB 898, sponsored by state Senator Ronald Kouchi (D-8), would permanently strip an individual of their Second Amendment rights, not based on a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on a quasi-criminal proceeding.  The ...

Kentucky: Senate Constitutional/Permitless Carry Legislation Amended

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Kentucky: Senate Constitutional/Permitless Carry Legislation Amended

Today, Senator Robin Webb (D-18) offered a strike and insert amendment to constitutional/permitless carry legislation, Senate Bill 7.

New Hampshire Governor Signs Constitutional Carry Into Law

News  

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

New Hampshire Governor Signs Constitutional Carry Into Law

Measure Effective Immediately. Today was a great victory for gun owners in New Hampshire when Gov. Chris Sununu signed Senate Bill 12 into law, allowing law-abiding New Hampshirites to carry their firearms in the manner that ...

West Virginia: Pro-Carry Legislation Introduced

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

West Virginia: Pro-Carry Legislation Introduced

Multiple pro-gun bills were introduced this week in the West Virginia Legislature that seek to provide protections to West Virginians who choose to carry a firearm for self-defense. 

South Dakota: Bill Attempting to Silence NRA Passed by House Committee

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

South Dakota: Bill Attempting to Silence NRA Passed by House Committee

Today, the House Judiciary Committee heard and passed House Bill 1200 by a 9-3 vote. 

Washington: Anti-Gun Legislation Could be Heard on the Floor Next Week

Friday, February 24, 2017

Washington: Anti-Gun Legislation Could be Heard on the Floor Next Week

As early as next week, the Washington House of Representatives could hear and vote on House Bill 1122 and House Bill 1483.

Iowa: Pro-Gun Bill Passes Subcommittee

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Iowa: Pro-Gun Bill Passes Subcommittee

Today, House Study Bill 133, the omnibus bill which would make many pro-gun reforms for Iowa gun owners, passed its subcommittee hearing.  HSB 133 will now go to the full House Judiciary Committee for further consideration.  ...

Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Petition for Supreme Court Review in Peruta Right-to-Carry Case

Friday, February 24, 2017

Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Petition for Supreme Court Review in Peruta Right-to-Carry Case

In January, California Rifle & Pistol Association attorneys filed a petitionwith the United States Supreme Court asking the Court to review the NRA-supported case of Peruta v. California, which seeks to confirm that the Second ...

A Fourth Circuit Trifecta: New Rulings Confirm Need for Judges who Respect Second Amendment

News  

Friday, February 24, 2017

A Fourth Circuit Trifecta: New Rulings Confirm Need for Judges who Respect Second Amendment

Anyone still unconvinced about the importance of the courts and the need for justices who support Second Amendment rights had plenty of food for thought this month, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.