Some of us regard all of those decisions that did not "incorporate" the
BoR to the states were wrongly decided. See
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/110-516jr.htm
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/211-078jr.htm
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/302-319jr.htm
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/332-046jr.htm
/Williams v. Florida/ 399 U.S. 78 (1970)
/Apodaca v. Oregon/ 406 U.S. 404 (1972)
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The better analogy would be to federal-but-not-state
prohibitions that persist even now. The federal government must
generally provide for jury trials in civil cases (with some exceptions).
The Court has held that this provision does not, however, apply to the
states. Likewise, the Court have held that states aren't bound by the
Grand Jury Clause, or by the unanimity requirements of the Criminal Jury
Trial Clause. Does it follow that Congress is barred from providing
resources to state justice systems that allow some civil trials to
proceed without juries, that provide for prosecution by information
rather than by indictment, or that provide for nonunanimous criminal
juries? I know of no authority that even hints at such a result.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
