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
California: DOJ Issues “Notice of Modification” to Proposed Ammunition Background Check Regulations

Thursday, April 18, 2019

California: DOJ Issues “Notice of Modification” to Proposed Ammunition Background Check Regulations

Today, the California Department of Justice issued a “Notice of Modification” to their proposed regulations regarding the soon to be implemented ammunition background check procedures. As a result of these changes, a second 15-day public ...

Heeee’s Baaack: Bill Clinton Peddles Gun Control on a Wish and a Lie

News  

Friday, April 19, 2019

Heeee’s Baaack: Bill Clinton Peddles Gun Control on a Wish and a Lie

Proving there is no statute of limitations on political opportunism, this week former President Bill Clinton used the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the tragic school shooting in Littleton, Colo. to pen an op-ed pushing ...

Maine: Firearm Seizure Bill Heads To Judiciary Committee

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Maine: Firearm Seizure Bill Heads To Judiciary Committee

On April 22nd, the Maine Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Legislative Document 1312, which would allow for firearms to be seized and Second Amendment rights to be suspended without due process. 

Indiana: Important Self-Defense Bill Passes Legislature, On to Governor

Monday, April 22, 2019

Indiana: Important Self-Defense Bill Passes Legislature, On to Governor

On April 22nd, both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly voted to concur with the amendments made to House Bill 1284 during the conference committee process.  HB 1284 has been amended to now include many ...

New York Times Admits Privately-Funded “Gun Violence” Research is a Thing

News  

Friday, April 19, 2019

New York Times Admits Privately-Funded “Gun Violence” Research is a Thing

The New York Times – the “paper of record” – reports that “Gun Research is Suddenly Hot.” While we’re happy to see the Times has finally acknowledged that “gun research” can survive federal restrictions on taxpayer funded gun control ...

California: Legislature Returns from Spring Break

Sunday, April 21, 2019

California: Legislature Returns from Spring Break

The California Legislature returns from spring recess this week and seven different committees are considering bills that could impact your rights. 

News  

Monday, April 22, 2019

With Proposed Federal Legislation, Anti-gun Advocates Seek to Impose May-Issue Gun Ownership

In 1987, only ten states had concealed carry laws that treated the Right-to-Carry in a manner consistent with our constitutional right to bear arms. Understanding that the whims and prejudices of government officials are incompatible ...

Media Continues to Cause Distorted Fear of School Violence

News  

Friday, April 19, 2019

Media Continues to Cause Distorted Fear of School Violence

When it comes to the wellbeing of today’s youth, one would think that all could agree that provoking unnecessary fear should be avoided. That apparently is not the case, however, when it comes to pushing ...

President to Speak at 148th NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Indianapolis, Indiana on April 26

News  

Monday, April 22, 2019

President to Speak at 148th NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Indianapolis, Indiana on April 26

President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will address NRA members at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) Leadership Forum on Friday, April 26, 2019 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The complete list of ...

Pittsburgh Residents Seek Preliminary Injunction Against Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines

News  

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Pittsburgh Residents Seek Preliminary Injunction Against Ban on Standard Capacity Magazines

With support from the NRA, gun owners challenging Pittsburgh’s ban on publicly carrying loaded magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds filed a motion today seeking a preliminary injunction. If the motion is granted, ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

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.