From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:37:43 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits
In-Reply-To: <v03102803b0252334b238@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970823202919.637D-100000@cavern.uark.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Tim May wrote:
> 
> There's a landmine here, of course. Namely, the issue of whether states may
> impose restrictions which are "unconstitutional." To some states rights
> folks, as I assume Jim Choate may be, the answer is often "of course." To
> some libertarians, the answer is often "of course not." A good example to
> consider is "free speech." The First Amendment talks about Congress shall
> make no law...does this mean California may ban certain books, restrict
> certain religions, or impose censorship on the press?
> 
> (Most folks would say "Of course not." But on what basis can individual
> states and municipalities override the Second Amendment?)

Most folks would, today, but this was not always a given in our
constitutional jurisprudence.  It's a post-14th Amendment
development, the Bill Of Rights having been understood by the
SCt to have been applied to the states by virtue of the 14th
Amendment's restrictions on state governments.  It's never 
been an impeccable logic, but it seems to get to the right
result.  For most folks, anyway:)
MacN