From: Mark Ferran
To: Lex Rex
Subject: The First Ten Amendments were not sufficient in and of themselves to restrain the STATES

The First Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) were held NOT sufficient in an of themselves to restrain the STATES from Depriving People of Property, nor of the Freedom of Speech, nor of the Right to Compensation for property Taken, nor any of the other rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.  It had been decided that the Bill of Rights in an of itself only restrained the acts of the Federal Government, but not even the most tyranical abuses of power of the States:
BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."
See also:  "The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment"
"As explained by Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment was 'intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.'" "
Further purely academic insights into the thinking of the Framers and the States Ratifying the First Ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) is to be found in the essay titled:
"Ironically the First Fourteenth Amendment"
That essay documents that the Framers of the Bill of Rights, (e.g., James Madison) had also proposed an "Article the Fourteenth", that  "called for selective incorporation against the states some of the other Articles" of amendment (i.e., some of the Bill of Rights) in these words:
"No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases." 
The essay quotes from records of the debate on this proposed 14th Amendment that:
"Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people."
"It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "Bill of Rights package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by "the people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's representatives. It is very ironic that another Article also numbered fourteen was passed some 79 or so years later and that it would, in time be used to selectively incorporate other Articles of the "Bill of Rights package" against the states."
79 years later the People of the United States corrected the Framers' omission, and obviated any further argument as to the effect of the Bill of Rights as a limit on the tyrannical power of the States, by prosecuting a Civil War against the tyrannical States and thereby compelled the States to Ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, which echoed the same unambiguous "No State Shall..." language: 
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [this language was specifically intended to include all the rights secured in the Bill of Rights]; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
By the end of the Civil War, the need for the People to have a way to restrain tyranny of the states was painfully clear, as explained in the speech of John A. Bingham (the draftsmand of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to Congress:
'As slaves were not protected by the Constitution, there might be some color of excuse for the slave States in their disregard for the requirement of the bill of rights as to slaves in refusing them protection in life or property. * * * 'But, sir, there never was even colorable excuse, much less apology, for any man North or South claiming that any State Legislature or State court, or State Executive, has any right to deny protection to any free citizen of the United States within their limits in the rights of life, liberty, and property. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights. Gentlemen who oppose this amendment simply declare to these rebel States, 'Go on with your confiscation statutes, your statutes of banishment, your statutes of unjust imprisonment, your statutes of murder and death against men because of their loyalty to the Constitution and Government of the United States." Cong.Globe. at 1089-1091.
"After the civil war had closed, the same authority was asserted, and, in the States recently in insurrection, was exercised to the oppression of the freedmen; and towards citizens of the North seeking residence there, or citizens resident there who had maintained their loyalty during the war for nationality, a feeling of jealousy and dislike existed which could not fail soon to fined expression in discriminating and hostile legislation. It was to prevent the possibility of such legislation in future, and its enforcement where already adopted, that the fourteenth amendment was directed."
"Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states."
In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), the US Supreme Court in the context of a lawsuit brought by White people acknowledged for the first time that some of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are of such a fundamental nature as to be included in the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "Liberty" substantively secured by "Law" and Due Process thereof. See:  Part 1: Law, a Revolutionary Idea for Peace  at  The Court held that the Right to Just Compensation of the 5th Amendment was incorporated in the "Law" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court's implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment's specific intent to secure the entire Bill of Rights against infringement by the States was delayed and hindered greatly by the Fraudulent proposition (first invented by Attorneys of the States), and maintained by some people up to this present day, that the sole or primary "purpose" and effect of the "No State Shall" provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "was to prevent discriminatory treatment of the recently emancipated slaves."  This Fraud was soon exploded by able Congressmen and Senators who had framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, some of whom later appeared before the US Supreme Court as Attorneys advocating for the Rights of White (and All) Citizens.  Here is a note about their first successes in dispelling the fraud and vindicating the rights of White citizens:   The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment
Anyone who disputes that the purpose and original intent of the "No State Shall" provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide protection of the Federal Courts over the Civil Rights of White Citizens, no less than Black Citizens, is a punk.  Some Judges and Attorneys are such Punks, but that does not justify the perpetuation of the fraudulent proposition that still causes mischief for citizens today.
Message: 17       
   Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:58:30 -0500
   From: "Ron"
Subject: Re: Fw: I Dispute that Amendment Fourteen...was designed primarily, to secure to the colored

and the first ten were sufficient in and of themselves

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mark Ferran 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:42 PM
  Subject: Fw: I Dispute that Amendment Fourteen...was designed primarily, to secure to the colored

  I have not yet received from the "National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion Latinos" a response to this challenge:

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mark Ferran
  Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:57 PM
  Subject: Amendment Fourteen...was designed primarily, to secure to the colored race, thereby invested with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship, the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons").

  Dear Officer of the NAACL:

  I dispute your contention that the Fourteenth Amendment "was designed primarily, to secure to the colored race,.., the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons".

  To the Contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment was "designed primarily" to give CONGRESS POWER to secure to Loyal WHITE Citizens the Rights of Life, Liberty and Property which had been infringed by the Southern states prior to and during and after the civil war.  The only provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that was "designed primarily" for the benefit of the black freedmen was the first clause that granted them citizenship which had been denied by Dred Scott v. Sandford.  Everything else in the first paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment was "designed primarily" for the protecton of white citizens, but not excluding the black citizens.

  See:  The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment at:

  That essay begins to prove that: "Afro-centric views of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are NOT supported by the "First Legislative Construction" of that Amendment by Congress (i.e., 42 USC sections 1983, 1985, 1986) nor by the contemporaneous and cumulative interpretations of the United States Supreme Court.  (see cases and statutes below).  The Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to give even the "humblest" WHITE citizen born in any state an "assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the government."

  This historical fact was established by top-notch attorneys who advocated vigilantly for the expansion of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Without their efforts might have been stuck with the Majority opinion in the Slaughter House Cases, instead of enjoying the much more beneficial doctrines of the Three Dissenters in the Slaughter House cases.  (See Bartemeyer v. Iowa opinions quoted in The Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment at )
 "The Fourteenth Amendment, according to Justice Field, "was intended to give practical effect to the Declaration of 1776 of inalienable rights which are the gift of the Creator, which the law does not confer, but only recognizes." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 105 (1872, Dissenting Opinion). Agreeing with this opinion, Justice Harlan said that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, "the privileges and immunities specified in the first ten amendments as belonging to the people of the United States are equally protected by the constitution." Dissent in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 616 (1899)."

  And, from
    "Three justices seem to have determined, in large part, the trend of the opinions of the Supreme Court, in the cases changing the meaning and content of the term "due process of law" and in ushering in a period characterized as a "carnival of unconstitutionality, which perhaps was at its height between 1890 and 1910."[5] They were Justices Field, Harlan, and Brewer. Certain peculiarities and characteristics of these justices made a distinct impression upon this unique feature of modern American constitutional law. Foremost of this group is Justice Field.

    "He had, we are told, a quality of intellect which led him on all occasions to seek for fundamental and universal principles.[6] His creative power, exhibited in a marked degree in his legislative career, was also characteristic of his decisions on the bench.[7] His experience in a frontier community, as well as his training in early life, developed a philosophy of individualism in which he was disposed to encourage in every way individual self-exertion, and to object to measures attempting to regulate economic life.[8] It was this philosophy that led Justice Field to object strongly to any exercise of governmental power which to him seemed arbitrary,[9] and that impelled him to insist that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent arbitrary governmental acts.[10] More consistently than any other justice, he opposed the inclination of the justices of the Supreme Court not to give the broadest meaning and application to the due process and equal protection phrases of the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the spokesman of the court in some of the leading cases in which the interpretation of the amendment was changed, and continued on the bench until the reversal of the Slaughter-House Case and similar cases was accomplished, and until the amendment was interpreted as at least a negative protection to any interference with civil or political rights.[11]

    "Justice Harlan, like Justice Field, was influenced considerably by the philosophy and experience of the frontier, and he, too, was individualistic in much of his thinking. He was regarded as a "militant justice," and was strongly nationalistic in his political theories.[12] Inclined to emphasize the theory of natural rights he was readily disposed to adopt the doctrine of fundamental rights which the justices of the Supreme Court were slowly developing in connection with the interpretation of the due process clause. He had supposed, he said, that the intention of the people of the United States was to prevent the deprivation of any legal right in violation of the fundamental principles inhering in due process of law,[13] objected to any interference with private property rights,[14] and joined, as a rule, Justice Field in protesting against the regulative measures of the state legislatures. He agreed with Justice Field that Congress and the courts ought to be authorized to exercise a national control over civil rights.[15]

    "No greater exponent of the individualistic philosophy of this period was appointed to the Supreme Court than Justice Brewer.[16] In decisions while on the circuit court, and in his opinions and influence on the Supreme Bench, he availed himself of every opportunity to defend the extreme individualistic doctrines which prevailed at this time. His point of view was expressed quite freely in an address delivered before the graduating class of the Yale Law School in June, 1891, on "Protection to Private Property from Public Attack." Referring to the Declaration of Independence and the bills of rights of state constitutions, Justice Brewer said, "they equally affirm that sacredness of life, of liberty, and of property, are rights, inalienable rights, anteceding human government, and its only sure foundation, given not by man to man, but granted by the Almighty to everyone, something which he has by virtue of his manhood, which he may not surrender and of which he may not be deprived." To Justice Brewer, the Declaration of Independence was the cornerstone of the federal Constitution.[17]