Bill Of Rights Incorporation
The Incorporation of The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights has generally been regarded as an essential protection for the people from the undue oppressions of their government. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, not state governments. The Bill of Rights were gradually made suitable to state governments through the process of incorporation. The “incorporation of the Bill of Rights” is the legal technique that has allowed the gradual application of the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the state as well as the federal government. Generally speaking, the U.S. is devised under the principle of federalism, a system that provides equal responsibility through the balancing of power. Similarly, the …show more content…
For that reason, protective rights were not federally imposed at the state level. Eventually, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Barron v. The Mayor and City of Baltimore, wherein Barron requested “just compensation” under the Takings Clause of the V Amendment. At this time, the court’s understanding of the Takings Clause was coupled with the understanding the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not to the usurpations of the state. Consequently, the court dismissed the case on grounds for insufficient jurisdiction over a state issue regarding a claim for a federal right. This decision expressed by Justice Marshall reiterated the thought process at this time; specifically that the Bill of Rights jurisdiction was only to the federal government, not the state government. However, federal government began to notice a need for individual rights against the states based on the idea that people are under a greater influence by their states than by the federal government, especially in remote …show more content…
Before the civil war the court received nominal cases. In similar fashion, the role of the court immediately after the Civil War was one focused on the preservation of capitalistic ideals. With the collapse of political support coupled with the weakening of federal power, the enforcement of rights weakened. Accordingly, the court found themselves in a role of developing standards and tests to give meaning again to the promise of federal protection of core rights. The court understood people have more interaction with their state governments and that such control is necessary to ensure rights protections for the people in those states. The gradual recognition of those rights in the XIV Amendment gave the court many new opportunities to use the power of judicial review. Conversely, the New Deal Crisis after the Great Depression forced the role of the court to change dramatically from a protector of business interests to a protector of individual rights. The role as protector of rights, at least as an image of the court, as continued today; however, because of the reliance of the court during the Civil Rights Movement, the power of the court has increase significantly. To this end, the court’s role today is that is significantly
The Bill of Rights has generally been regarded as an essential protection for the people from the undue oppressions of their government. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, not state governments. The Bill of Rights were gradually made suitable to state governments through the process of incorporation. The “incorporation of the Bill of Rights” is the legal technique that has allowed the gradual application of the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the state as well as the federal government. Generally speaking, the U.S. is devised under the principle of federalism, a system that provides equal responsibility through the balancing of power. Similarly, the …show more content…
For that reason, protective rights were not federally imposed at the state level. Eventually, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Barron v. The Mayor and City of Baltimore, wherein Barron requested “just compensation” under the Takings Clause of the V Amendment. At this time, the court’s understanding of the Takings Clause was coupled with the understanding the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not to the usurpations of the state. Consequently, the court dismissed the case on grounds for insufficient jurisdiction over a state issue regarding a claim for a federal right. This decision expressed by Justice Marshall reiterated the thought process at this time; specifically that the Bill of Rights jurisdiction was only to the federal government, not the state government. However, federal government began to notice a need for individual rights against the states based on the idea that people are under a greater influence by their states than by the federal government, especially in remote …show more content…
Before the civil war the court received nominal cases. In similar fashion, the role of the court immediately after the Civil War was one focused on the preservation of capitalistic ideals. With the collapse of political support coupled with the weakening of federal power, the enforcement of rights weakened. Accordingly, the court found themselves in a role of developing standards and tests to give meaning again to the promise of federal protection of core rights. The court understood people have more interaction with their state governments and that such control is necessary to ensure rights protections for the people in those states. The gradual recognition of those rights in the XIV Amendment gave the court many new opportunities to use the power of judicial review. Conversely, the New Deal Crisis after the Great Depression forced the role of the court to change dramatically from a protector of business interests to a protector of individual rights. The role as protector of rights, at least as an image of the court, as continued today; however, because of the reliance of the court during the Civil Rights Movement, the power of the court has increase significantly. To this end, the court’s role today is that is significantly