5 ms·
> What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'? The grandparent poster is arguing against the doctrine of in
by Majromax 5y ago
> What about the Bill of Rights allows States to infringe rights but not the 'federal government'?
The grandparent poster is arguing against the doctrine of incorporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...). Prior to the Civil War, the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were read to apply specifically against the federal government.
However, the thirteenth amendment (banning slavery) explicitly overrides state jurisdiction. The fourteenth amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the law, and this is the usual route by which the other rights guaranteed under the Constitution have been extended to apply against state law.
In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments.
- golemotron 5y ago> In recent decades, this question has been settled so thoroughly that an anti-incorporation stance is a radical reinterpretation of the relationship between the federal and state governments. And here we are. Many of the things we see as status quo were originally radical changes. If this tendency toward decentralization persists over the next 50 years a move back toward centrality will be considered radical too.
- annoyingnoob 5y agoDo you recognize any inalienable rights? If so, what are some?
- golemotron 5y agoThere are many rights that I like and want, but the word inalienable is tricky. Governments take away rights all the time. Inalienable is a wish rather than a practical reality. It's good to have many sovereigns so that people can see the effects of different value sets, learn from them, and express preference by moving or attempting to change their corner of the world. It's a pro-choice position, really.
- annoyingnoob 5y agohttps://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Basic human rights are not a wish.
- rsj_hn 5y agoIt's a "declaration", meaning no legal force. It's not a treaty. And worse, there are weasel words and carve outs that basically nullify it if the state deems it appropriate. This is how nations like Cuba can be proud signatories.
- annoyingnoob 5y agoThe point is about inalienable rights. Would you agree that there are inalienable rights?
- rsj_hn 5y agoThat's a question about philosophy, not real things existing. I mean, it's not going to be settled as a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. But if you are asking for my beliefs, then no, rights are downstream of duties. For example, your right to free speech presupposes a duty on others to not punish you for your speech. Your right to housing presupposes a duty on others to provide you with housing. Your right to freedom of religion presupposes a duty on others to not discriminate against you for your religion and to make good faith accommodation for your religion, etc. Different cultures will have different answers to this question which will be localized and not universal, as well as different capacities to impose these duties. Moreover, alienating you from these rights is quite easy, as it only requires abandoning the corresponding duties. So rights are clearly not inalienable. At least this is my view - but you asked, so I tried to answer in good faith. I'm not going to argue with you if you have a different view, because again, this is localized to which culture/tradition you belong to.
- annoyingnoob 5y ago