[AClay47]

This is a political topic. My feelings won't be hurt if anyone disagrees, but here are my thoughts, right or wrong. This is not trolling, and diferent viewpoints are welcome. Frankly, I'm interested in reading other people's opinions!

It is easy to dismiss the Constitution Party as another whacky, far-right group. Their platform would repeal all post Civil War Amendments.
I am not endorsing the Party. The best chance we now have of preserving honor and liberty seems to be with the Republican Party, but maybe it's time we considered the ideas raised by the CP? No, I'm not for repealing the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery, and I doubt the Constitution Party intends to reinstate the Peculiar Institution, either...

but, what about the 14th Amendment, which subordinated State governments to the Fed, or the 16th Amendment which gave the government the right to Income tax? What happened to the checks and balances envisioned by Madison?

Shouldn't Senators be appointed by State Legislatures, as the Founding Fathers provided? Is it better to have rich millionaires who can afford expensive campaigns dominate Congress? Why keep the 17th Amendment?

Maybe, we are better off with a powerful Federal government, but that isn't what the Constitution provided - quite the opposite. Jefferson envisoned a government by consent, but Lincoln overthrew democratically elected governments which did not consent to Federal rule! Then came the postwar amendments, while much of the country was under military occupation! Hopefully, the Constitution Party will foster intelligent debate in a common sense, thoughtful manner.

 

[Custer]

But for Jim Crow laws I doubt anyone would have been using the 14th amendment to selectively incorporate parts of the BOR and apply them to the states. Once that momentum started, there was no stopping them in other areas.

Of course, that being said, we might love an activist court that ruled the 2nd was incorporated by the 14th.

I have more problems with the incredible expansion of the Feds power to regulate interstate commerce. There seems to be no limit to the legislation that can be justified on its back. No modern recognition this is a government of limited powers. No one talks about enumerated powers.

BOR issues are a drop in the bucket compared to this.

One easy solution to some of the abuses of the 14th is to amend it to cover citizens, not persons.

 

[AClay47]

Custer, I agree about interstate commerce. Many people aren't aware how FDR made the Supreme Court adopt his New Deal measures by threatening to "pack the court," or simply add another 9 justices who would agree with him to the nine who were then on the Court. The case, which inspired Roosevelt's wrath was Schechter Poultry Corp v U.S..

Here is an interesting opinion on the two issues:

"With little exception, for the last 60 years the interstate commerce clause has been interpreted to empower Congress to legislate in any area which may affect interstate commerce. Just as the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to expand Congressional legislative power, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to expand the power of the Federal Judiciary to set the scope of personal liberties."

A Brief History of U.S. Constitutional Interpretation, by Edward Hanigan.

Yet, as you pointed out, the right to keep and bear arms has yet to be protected by the Bill of Rights against State or local infringement.

 

[Custer]

The 14th gave us Miranda and other similar cases that I can live with.

But, interstate commerce gave us the 4th branch of government and I can not live with very much of it.

The states are no longer the answer. They are as bad as the Feds and in some cases worse. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave wondering how states could have turned out like this.