Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: re: Edwin Meese
Message-ID: <465@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 10:12:52 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.465
Posted: Tue Jan  7 10:12:52 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 19:49:21 EST
References: <130@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 35

> []
> 
> >Meese has also claimed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the
> >States.  All libertarians on this network should be outraged at this
> >contention - without the protection of the Bill of Rights you can kiss
> >our civil liberties goodbye.
> 
> If Meese is out to dismantle the Bill of Rights, then he deserves contempt.
> But, while he may not have been prudent in making such a statement, he
> was not altogether incorrect.  The First Amendment of the U. S. Constiution
> starts out with, "Congress shall make no law ...".  This is the U. S.
> Congress; no such restriction is mentioned here concerning the State
> level.  If you want protection at the State level, then you should use
> what is provided in the Constitution of that state.
> 
> >                    tim sevener  whuxn!orb
> David Olson
 
That is not true, Dave.  The 14th Amendment provided that the rights
afforded by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment itself would
apply to *all Americans* irrespective of State.  The reason is quite
obvious - if there were not such a provision then the slaveowning
states who had just been forced back into the Union by a bloody
Civil War would have simply relegislated slavery back into existence.
Is this what Edwin Meese wants?
If Ed Meese wants to go back to the *original* Constitution before the
Civil War, before amendments, before women had the right to vote
then he is being the crassest reactionary.   The Constitution is a
living document which has been amended to extend democracy and citizens
rights in its almost 200 year existence.   It is contemptuous
of what the Constitution stands for to try to turn back the clock
to when rights were systematically denied to blacks and women.
Worst about Meese's interpretation is that the Bill of Rights could
be denied to *all* by his logic.
                        tim sevener   whuxn!orb