Written by: Goemagog

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

I've cited this one before several times too, and it's been ignored every time as meaningless.

and what i said about 14 was...

"the state can not infringe on any right that the federal government can not"

the supreme court ruling hasn't had any qualms about forcing states and local governments to comply with the bill of rights. in fact, they did that just this morning to two kentucky counties.

I don't despise the Warren Court, and agree with most of their 'controversial' decisions.

But when, in the year of grace 1866, there is placed in the Constitution of the United States a declaration that 'no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,' can a State make any thing due process of law which, by its own legislation, it chooses to declare such? To affirm this is to hold that the prohibition to the States is of no avail, or has no application where the invasion of private rights is effected under the forms of State legislation.

DAVIDSON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

In the fourteenth amendment the provision regarding the taking of private property is omitted, and the prohibition against the state is confined to its depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is claimed, however, that the citizen is deprived of his property without due process of law if it be taken by or under state authority for any other than a public use, either under the guise of taxation or by the assumption of the right of eminent domain. In that way the question whether private property has been taken for any other than a public use becomes material in this court, even where the taking is under the authority of the state, instead of the federal, government.

FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST v. BRADLEY

The general grant of legislative power in the constitution of a state does not enable the legislature, in the exercise either of the right of eminent domain or of the right of taxation, to take private property, without the owner's consent, for any but a public object. Nor can the legislature authorize counties, cities, or towns to contract, for private objects, debts which must be paid by taxes. It cannot, therefore, authorize them to issue bonds to assist merchants or manufacturers, whether natural persons or corporations, in their private business. These limits of the legislative power are now too firmly established by judicial decisions to require extended argument upon the subject.

COLE v. CITY OF LA GRANGE

Goe, gave you three more than a hundred years old.