On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/19/01 10:08:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> << The plain meaning of the 1st Amendment is clearly a restriction on the
> power of Congress, yet the Supreme Court routinely holds that it applies to
> school districts, and city councils, etc.>>
>
> Well, the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land, and nothing a
> state does can violate it. Also, the constitution specifically calls for
> congress to guarantee each state a republican form of government, which has
> been interpreted as meaning that each state derives its powers to govern from
> congress and the federal constitution. And the Bill of Rights is not just a
> restriction on congress. The states cannot do what congress cannot do,
> therefore the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well.
Not at all. Not in any way. The states in the United States have dual
sovereignty - they existed in some form, after all, _before_ the Federal
Government itself. The states have many powers that the federal
government does not. In fact, many of the things that the federal
government does are not specifically within its powers, but instead tied
to federal money. The classic example is the old 55 mph speed limit.
This was not, in fact, a federal law. Instead, the law stated that any
state that failed to set a maximum speed limit of 55 mph (92 kph for those
who need the crutch of a logical system of units :-) would lose federal
money for highway construction. The reason for this is specifically that
setting a maximum speed limit was deemed outside the powers of the federal
government, but within those of the states. Your argument essentially
demolishes the idea of federalism - one of the central pillars of the
American government - by arguing that the federal government can do
anything, and the states are nothing more than its delegated subsidiaries.
That is true in England, but not at all in the United States.
What John is not saying, however, is that there is a clear reason for why
the "Congress shall make no law" is now read to include state governments.
It was not prior to the Civil War. After the Civil War, however, the 14th
Amendment was passed. The Supreme Court has since held that one of the
effects of the 14th Amendment - probably the most important one, in fact -
is to extend some Constitutional prohibitions on federal power to the
state governments as well. Each state has its own individual
constitution, which may set further limits on that state government.
Without the 14th Amendment, however, there would be virtually no limits
imposed upon state governments by the federal constitution.
> Tom Beck
Gautam Mukunda
