Incorporation
Sirus
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Federal Protections -> State Laws</div> So, what do you guys think about incorporation ?
It's certainly debatable understanding the original context of the Bill of Rights, however then there's the problems involving the fourteenth amendment.
Originally, the Bill of Rights was an insurance to anti-federalists that the central government wouldn't grow so far as to be able to overpower states, or take away civil liberties. However, it never included that states would have to guarantee these rights, just the federal government. Therefore, our ideals under the freedom of speech were, until incorporation, not applicable to states, allowing states to take away rights mentioned under the first ten amendments because they were in relation to congress and the national government.
Idealistically, it would most certainly be agreeable to support nationalization, but in practice, the ideas of neo-nazis "peacefully" preaching against ethnic minorities may not be something you would like in your neighboorhood, not because you want to null their rights, but because you disagree with their messages of hate, however, there's nothing you can do. It's not to say that there would be no rights without nationalization, but under state rights, you would be able to limit the extent of some rights, such as limiting the extent of free speech, because just because it's someone's opinion, doesn't mean it's not discriminatory or hateful.
Within nationalization, and during 1925, states were not able to prevent an individual calling for a socialistic bloody coup d'etat because according to the supreme court, under the 14th they were protected.
So what do you guys think ?
It's certainly debatable understanding the original context of the Bill of Rights, however then there's the problems involving the fourteenth amendment.
Originally, the Bill of Rights was an insurance to anti-federalists that the central government wouldn't grow so far as to be able to overpower states, or take away civil liberties. However, it never included that states would have to guarantee these rights, just the federal government. Therefore, our ideals under the freedom of speech were, until incorporation, not applicable to states, allowing states to take away rights mentioned under the first ten amendments because they were in relation to congress and the national government.
Idealistically, it would most certainly be agreeable to support nationalization, but in practice, the ideas of neo-nazis "peacefully" preaching against ethnic minorities may not be something you would like in your neighboorhood, not because you want to null their rights, but because you disagree with their messages of hate, however, there's nothing you can do. It's not to say that there would be no rights without nationalization, but under state rights, you would be able to limit the extent of some rights, such as limiting the extent of free speech, because just because it's someone's opinion, doesn't mean it's not discriminatory or hateful.
Within nationalization, and during 1925, states were not able to prevent an individual calling for a socialistic bloody coup d'etat because according to the supreme court, under the 14th they were protected.
So what do you guys think ?
Comments
ummm...well, I personally think Socialists should have tried a coup d^etat
uhhh..go free speech?