Bio not provided
The 14th Amendment is controversial but does affirm in the very first paragraph that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." If a state, some number of them, or even all of them decided they were going to enact laws denying trials by indefinite detention, on what grounds could that be nullified at the State level(s) if the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal government? Moving to another State wouldn't even be an option if they all were able to nullify the Bill of Rights and invoke extradition under Article IV in order to deny due process to those they accuse. Madison said in Federalist #48 that "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for". Surely an elective despotism at the State level is not the government they fought for either. I recommend this site often for clarification on Constitutional issues. I understand that the States reserved more religious freedom legislatively than the Federal government, for example, but could Michael Boldin or someone please elaborate further on this article and the interpretations therein? Thanks in advance.
3 years ago on Bill of Rights. FTW!