1/2
Taking America backwards means no bill of rights at state level
"Despite his success in amending the Constitution, Madison was bitterly disappointed that the document restricted only the national government—not state governments—from taking away people’s liberties. After all, the text of what became the First Amendment begins with the words “Congress shall make no law . . .” It says nothing about what states can’t do."
2/2
"The Bill of Rights did not generally begin to apply to states until the twentieth century, especially after World War II."
-- 1789 - Marc Aronson, Susan Campbell Bartoletti
@Gdobbs2 I would call this an over-simplification, but it's not entirely untrue. Incorporation started early, but it's been a slow process, with many of the most important cases only in the last century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
@Gdobbs2 True. At the time, States considered themselves and each other more or less independent countries. It's why we use the term 'state', which means 'sovereign polity'. States in the US are not like Canadian providences, which have only DELEGATED sovereignty, which can be repealed. US State sovereignty is original and permanent, though MUTUALLY amendable -- which is what happened in 1868.
The Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to restrain the FEDERAL government, not States.
Cronical
WesDym