Do We Have A Right To Make Our Own City/State Laws

[RangerRick]

Cities, states tackle illegal immigration on their own

Conflicting laws and a bitter divide emerge

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - By DIANNE SOLÍS / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Patchwork_26bus.ART.North.Edition1.3e93916.html
FARMERS BRANCH –

This tidy Dallas suburb solicited European settlers through the Texas Emigration and Land Co. in the 1800s, but now it's debating how to control illegal immigration.

Some Farmers Branch City Council members want to pass an ordinance that would discourage illegal immigrants from living and working in the city.

Efforts by cities and states to crack down on illegal immigration are gaining traction across the country as an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws stalls in Congress.

Now this city in the immigrant gateway of Texas may follow in the footsteps of Hazleton, Pa., which passed its controversial Illegal Immigration Relief Act last month.

This year, municipalities have made at least three dozen attempts and state legislatures more than 550 to enact immigration policy on a patchwork basis.

The proposals range from statutes that prohibit landlords from renting to illegal immigrants to ordinances that deny business permits to companies that employ illegal immigrants. But they also include measures that help illegal immigrants, such as funding for day labor sites.

"Unless the federal government acts with a strong voice on this ... we will continue to have these post-hoc initiatives all over the states, and many will contradict each other," said Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, the co-director of immigration studies at New York University.

The assorted laws and ordinances against illegal immigrants are raising legal challenges as a divided public weighs in on the issues.

César Perales, president and general counsel at the Puerto Rican Education and Legal Defense Fund, believes that the ordinances – including the one recently adopted in Hazleton – can be overturned on the theory of pre-emption, which states that only the federal government can make immigration laws. Other legal tools include civil rights laws that prohibit national-origin discrimination, he said.

His group, citing its civil rights mission, is suing to block Hazleton's ordinance and is tracking "copycat legislation."

"It's scary," Mr. Perales said. "Every time we pick up a newspaper, we read about another Hazleton."

Bonnie Gibson, a lawyer at employment law firm Littler Mendelson, said Hazleton copycats spell chaos for big employers.

"If I'm a multistate employer and I have to now deal with laws by municipality by municipality, I'm going to say: "Puhleeze, help me. I can't deal with this.' "

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, won't directly criticize the grass-roots policymakers in her home state.

But she does say immigration policy is "our responsibility" in the federal government and has introduced a bill that would offer work visas to many illegal immigrants. "I don't think we should take the onus off the federal government," she said.

In Farmers Branch, the City Council is studying the matter and hasn't said if or when it might bring such an ordinance to a vote.

Its potential phrasing would bar landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants and punish businesses that hire them.

And it could include a declaration that English is the city's official language, a possibility that caught the attention of one federal agency.

"Do you create language vigilantes by making people think they have to comply with some language ordinance?" asks Robert Canino, the managing attorney of the Dallas office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Any time there are English-only rules, we are going to look at it to see if it is discriminatory based on national origin and to see if there is a business justification for it."

[RangerRick]

Many states are also taking action on illegal immigration, according to a tally kept by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

For example, Colorado now prohibits state agencies from entering into contracts with businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

While federal law has prohibited employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants since 1986, this state law also requires that the contractors participate in a government program that verifies Social Security numbers. That program, known as Basic Pilot, is open to employers nationally on a voluntary basis.

At the same time, some state and local governments are taking steps that either directly or indirectly help illegal immigrants.

In Vermont, a new law requires courts to advise defendants of immigration consequences when pleading guilty to criminal offenses. Those consequences include denial of U.S. citizenship or deportation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some cities fund day labor sites, where illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens alike gather to seek work. Among them is Plano, which has operated a site since 1993 after businesses complained about men clustering around downtown and darting into traffic.

About 200 people a day now use the site, where a lottery system helps keep order. The contractor must check the work documents of those hired, explains Bob Buffington, neighborhood services manager for the city of Plano.

"It wasn't that we set out to do anything about legals or illegals," Mr. Buffington says. "This was the way we needed to solve a problem." Mexican consular identification card at banks so Mexican immigrants would get accounts, making them less a target for muggings.

Just this month, El Paso Mayor John Cook held a public hearing to encourage lawmakers

A few years ago, Austin police led the nation in pushing for the acceptance of the on Capitol Hill to pass comprehensive immigration reform. A resolution was drafted, saying that enforcement of federal immigration laws is "neither a state nor local responsibility."

That's why many took note of Farmers Branch and are watching to see if the City Council will pass an ordinance similar to Hazleton's.

Farmers Branch dates to the 1840s, when the first empresarios were given land contracts. Empresarios take their name from contract law with even deeper roots, when the area was part of Mexico.

Today, with one-fourth of the city foreign-born, many businesses and churches feature Chinese lettering and Spanish-language signs such as Tijera Magica, or Magic Scissors, and Panchita's Bodas, or Frannie's Weddings.

Maria Mancilla manages an apartment complex with many Latino families and said it would be difficult for her to reject an immigrant family that's in the U.S. illegally.

Besides, many families are of mixed status, with some family members here illegally and others who are not, she noted.

There are anti-discrimination laws to contend with, too, she said, listing several.

"Immigrants are the most punctual ones with their rent," Ms. Mancilla said. "And they respect property rights, too."

When Farmers Branch resident Thomas Bohmier heard of the potential for a Hazleton copycat ordinance, he said: "Wow. It's about time."

He said he has nothing against Hispanics, but the influx of Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants into the schools is causing too much disruption. His third-grade son suffered, and that's why he recently transferred the boy to a school with fewer immigrants.

The possibility that some of these children might be the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants doesn't mute his views. "If the parent is here illegally, they need to go back to where they came from," said Mr. Bohmier, a father of three.

[Hallo]

Thanks again RRick - good info.

Far as I can discern, any laws can be enacted anywhere as long as they don't usurp our bill of rights or our constitution.

[wvpeach1963]

on't know why it would be different than building codes.

State codes must be followed, but any county, city, or township can add articles to the state codes and those must be followed also.

So as long as they are not throwing out the laws , but just adding to them they should be inforceable.

Everybody should start by going after the employers that hire the workers. Put them out of business if needed. No jobs - presto, no more illegals.

[txanne63]

The powers that be have NO Constitutional right to superceed the Constitution of the State of Texas.

Each State i believe should be autonamous in their actions.
Whats good for Texas may not be good for Wisconsin--example]]

We have the right to decide wherther or not we can live in a given situation.

Since illegal---means againest the law---The PC crowd would have us break the law by allowing laws to be pasted to protect the illegals.

Not many know that Houston is a Sanctuary city---declared so by city charter--OK for Houston maybe---But not for us----We just had a business busted for hiring illegals --and we only have 700 or so residents,

Need a right??

I thought we already had the right to decide what we wanted?

How foolish of me.

annie

[trixie]

I was thinking they should be able to pass laws - but I am pretty sure a city or county cannot supercede a state law - don't know about federal.

I am sure if any lawsuits are filed, it will be based on discrimination of some kind.

txanne, what kind of business was busted in your town? And why? I mean did someone report it?

I am up here in chicken country - and I am a little skeptical when they do the Wal Mart roundup and the IFCo roundup (that was almost a catch and release operation), and let the big employers go.

They could come here at shift change and fill the buses -

[RangerRick]

Ya know the thing that bugs me the most is the people on this forum. With but a few exceptions they rant and rave about all manners of freedoms lost, indignities suffered, wrongs of the world, injustice of government and where are they when they actually have the ability to make a difference?

Sittin on their ass and doing NOTHING. Is there no hope for America as a nation? If Back Woods Home forum is any kind of a representation of America WE ARE LOST, WE ARE DOOMED as a Nation and as a people. After a career in the military I suppose I'm just used to people actually doing something about their passions. Not so at Back Woods Home. The vast majority of responders of this forum are so full of themselves they have no room for America, their fellowman or even the possibilities of a catastrophic demise of their very own families. What a miserable collection of humanity I have stumbled into. Where is their rage over the indignities suffered at the hands of the millions of illegal aliens that have invaded our land like a blight upon the land? Maybe 10 souls with an actual conscience and vocalizing actual disgust and willing to act at the theft of those things we and our forefathers have sacrificed for so that our future, our very own children might reap the rewards of our struggles. For this, this bile of the sole, this bastardization of humanity I and millions of honorable servicemen and women have placed their selves in harms way and given our ultimate prize so that they could sit back in their complacency and do nothing. This sickness is an ever creeping disease sweeping across my home and I honestly don't know what to do about the shame I bare.

Rick

[wvpeach1963]

well said rick.

I get upset with people all the time for not caring as this country goes down the tubes.

don't know how to instill a passion to change it in people.

Seems the only thing they worry about is terroism.

While they are worried about that we are being sold out at fire sale prices.

[trixie]

I understand your anger, but I asked on another thread what to do about it.

Yes, the Minutemen, etc., are good organizations, and they have done wonders to help catch illegals and to bring attention to the subject. If not for them, I don't think the situation would ever have been mentioned in the media.

Personally, I could donate money to these organizations, I can't go sit on the border with them.

So, I will ask again, what should we do about it?

For some of us, this fight has been ongoing for over 20 years, so some of us are tired, very tired.

It has been great to see it at least being discussed, that gives a glimmer.

The only humor, if you can call it that, in this situation has been the different attitudes when the flood gets up close and personal as it moves across the nation. For those who hadn't been touched by it, their talk would be about the wonderful, friendly, hardworking people and just how mean, racist, and horrible I was for saying anything negative about them. That changes when it is their neighborhood that is invaded.

So will changes be made through the legal channels? Local law enforcement has options they are not exercising.

Will it be legislative? We don't need any more laws on the books. We don't need 'reform'. If our government would just start enforcing the immigration laws, the tax laws, the employment laws, the laws against fake ID, etc., the problem would be well on its way to being fixed. So how do you force a government to do what they are absolutely refusing to do. They are not only refusing, they are working against us.

So again, besides the good work of the Minutemen, etc., what do you think should be done?

[txanne63]

I was thinking they should be able to pass laws - but I am pretty sure a city or county cannot supercede a state law - don't know about federal.

I am sure if any lawsuits are filed, it will be based on discrimination of some kind.

txanne, what kind of business was busted in your town? *And why? *I mean did someone report it?

I am up here in chicken country - and I am a little skeptical when they do the Wal Mart roundup and the IFCo roundup (that was almost a catch and release operation), and let the big employers go. *

They could come here at shift change and fill the buses -




Trixie,

First let me welcome you to the forum---dont know if I have had the pleasure?

The business here was a lumber mill.
The owners of that mill also had a truck farm--sold vegtables to the local grocers.

Both business ---one owner employed at least 24 mexicans--maybe more. Most were illegal---NOT all.

The mill runs all year--the farm also---

They were reported by locals---the Border Patrol--State Hiway patrol made a swing through here--and whala---instant round up of most al the illegals---

The owner was threatened with a hefty fine of 1,000 per illegal per day---thats an awesome amount for a business---

Yes---someone reported them---No I will not say whom.

But they have a great big red and white sign up---

HELP WANTED

btw---just got in from work---sorry I took so long in ans you. ;D

annie

[trixie]

Hello Annie and thanks for the welcome and that is very good news about the roundups.

I like to hear good news for a change.

I get really disgusted with some people around here - they feel it is a status symbol to have 'their own Mexican'.

Do I sound hopeless - I'm not really - but I am so glad to hear what is happening in your neck of the woods.

[RangerRick]

trixie,

As I stated in the thread you mentioned, we MUST BECOME ACTIVISTS in behalf of our country. Many states do have minuteman organizations and that is an excellent place to start and no, everyone does not go to the border but only the passionate are found there.

Another option is to Goggle "Immigration Reform" for your city state organization as they are the political arm of our movement. Here in Oklahoma the organization is known as "IRON", Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now - http://www.okiron.org/.

I think my last post speaks for itself and is confirmed by the overwhelming response from the "BHM Army of The Apathic," what a disgusting lot this is.

Ranger Rick

[trixie]

Rick, just for the record, I am very serious when I ask a question. I don't ask just to bait someone. I was truly asking for ideas and information.

As for activism, I do agree with the Minutemen - that is one way. As I said, I think this would still be a non-issue if not for the Minutemen.

As for writing lawmakers, I think that is not going to get anything done. So far, all it has done is run them out of WAshington out into the country to have 'meetings'. In having meetings, they can hear from a small number of people - while hoping they look like they are doing something.

If they wanted to hear what the people think, they should have stayed in Washington and read their mail. They are ducking it, as far as I am concerned.

'Reform' is not needed. We have ample laws on the books right now - both national, state and local that would go a long way toward fixing this problem. If they pass more laws, the new laws will just be ignored also.

While I applaud the cities that are attempting to do something, I think any laws they pass will just end up in court with taxpayers paying for the court costs.

My feelings about this are based on 20 years of watching this situation and writing letters, etc.

So what else?

Real question - as I said, I don't ask questions to bait people.

I do have an idea - but can't get anyone interested to any degree and sometimes people get downright hostile about it.

[Matthew]

Hello All, I know I'm a little late to this thread but just to answer the original question.

The way I understand the legal side of the immigration issue is that immigration laws are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government. The feds have reserved the power to themselves and states/towns/cities cannot create laws in this area.

Of course the real annoying part about this is that the feds take all of the power to control the issue then do nothing about enforcing the laws. Actually asking State national guards to step in and do their work.

Rick, I'm share your frustration about people not being active with their beliefs. However, don't underestimate the power of an informed person spreading their ideas to people they come in contact with everyday.

[RangerRick]

Here in OKC we (IRON & OKMM) are down at the state capitol weekly talking to our congressmen and senators. *We actually have a true friend with a few and the others put up with us but they also understand we arn't going away and we have some sway with the common Oklahoman. *We have a big anti-illegal alien/immigration rally in Tulsa on Labor Day, quite appropriate we think so we'll be out waving the flag and getting good press.

I'm leaving for "Operation Sovernity" in the Laredo area *9-10 for an undetermined period. *Last April I worked with the NMMM in Columbis, NM and Fabins, TX with TXMM and last year Fabins for 2 weeks. *In May the wife and I identified a van load of illegals on the interstate leaving OK and entering KS. *We called the local shrieff and coordinated the apprehension of 17, even made the papers. *If I don't walk my talk I don't think I could look myself in the mirror. *It isn't cheap but I have comitted to take the fight to the enemy where ever the opportunity may arise.

I've got friends down in Dallas area - Farmers Branch that are very active at town hall and county meetings. *They are constantly in the spotlight and are bring considerable perssure to bare. *Of course, LULAC is there in force with the ever present threat of UCLA lawsuit.

So, if you want to know what you can do to stop illegal aliens/immigration I say once again, be an activist which will require you to GET INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR ABILITY or you could sit around and complain. *Personally, I've seen the government throw money at problems for years and I know that doesn't work so I would not recommend anyone doing much of that. *If all you are willing to do is write a check I'd suggest to do it to your local state MM/IRON organization. *Ya gotta put yourself out there. *It's the free choice we all have.

Ranger Rick

[lostone1413]

Thanks again RRick - good info.

Far as I can discern, any laws can be enacted anywhere as long as they don't usurp our bill of rights or our constitution.

The trouble is all the Governments Federal, State and City make laws all the time that go against the Bill Of Rights. The Republic has been dead since before the Civil War

[lostone1413]

I was thinking they should be able to pass laws - but I am pretty sure a city or county cannot supercede a state law - don't know about federal.

I am sure if any lawsuits are filed, it will be based on discrimination of some kind.

txanne, what kind of business was busted in your town? *And why? *I mean did someone report it?

I am up here in chicken country - and I am a little skeptical when they do the Wal Mart roundup and the IFCo roundup (that was almost a catch and release operation), and let the big employers go. *

They could come here at shift change and fill the buses -



When it comes to say Gun Laws Allot of Cities put laws on the book that go against the State.

[RangerRick]

When I look at the glass, I try to image it half full.

Ranger Rick

[Matthew]

Lostone, the ability of a city to pass gun laws depends on the wording of the State's Constitution and State law. Some states reserve all gun laws to the state legislature, and refuse to allow cities the ability to pass gun laws. (Virginia is one)
On the other hand some states allow cities the power.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to the states, they are free to ignore it if they choose. It only applies to the Feds.

[trixie]

In Texas, I am pretty sure local entities cannot supercede a state law. At least it was that way about 20 years ago - things change - but I would bet it doesn't change to allow more local control.

I do believe that immigration laws are uniquely a federal area.

That doesn't mean that local entities cannot do something about it. Every city, state and country LE can write a traffic ticket for no insurance, no DL, for no inspection, for unsafe vehicle, speeding, DUI, etc.

I believe in Texas it is a $10K fine if you have more than 1 DL in your possession.

I am pretty sure having a fake ID is illegal.

Yet, local entities pretty much ignore these areas when dealing with illegals. A strict, across the board, enforcement of these laws would make a city downright 'unfriendly' to illegals.

I realize there is the chance they won't pay the fine for traffic tickets - but there needs to be a record and LE need to check it out when they stop these people.

A auto can be impounded if it doesn't have insurance.

Also cities should have a right to say illegals can't work for the city or get city contracts.

Cities also have zoning laws that could be enforced in regards to number of occupants, operating businesses, number of vehicles on the street, trash in the yard, etc.

In our small town, a lady sculptress wanted to purchase one of the older homes, restore it and make a B & B. She also wanted to put some of her work for sale in the B & B. The town told her she could do a B & B - but could not offer anything for sale as her house was not zoned commercial.

I had a good laugh a couple of weeks later when I passed a house just down the street that rents to illegals. Out in the front yard, nailed to a post was a large, homemade cardboard sign stating 'Auto Mechanic'. In the back yard, were a half dozen cars being repaired.

So cities could do more with what they have on the books and not run such a risk of being tied up in court.

Why don't they?

[ceb]

Thanks again RRick - good info.

Far as I can discern, any laws can be enacted anywhere as long as they don't usurp our bill of rights or our constitution.


That's the job of FedGov.

[Dan_Kane]

" The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to the states, they are free to ignore it if they choose. It only applies to the Feds."
That's a revelation to me! Can the states ignore the 1st Amendment also?

[Matthew]

Yeah it is a shocker! I about fell out of my seat in class the day I heard it.

Here's the scoop.

Originally, the entire Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. State governments were free to ignore them if they so chose. Several of the Amendments were applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

The second amendment never made it there. (it's not the only one) Basically, there are very few gun cases that make it to the Supreme Court, so it has never had the chance to be applied to the states. Folks on both sides of the issue are waiting for the perfect case, because the decision would be huge.

If you think about it, this is why states like CA, MA, NY and IL can have such restrictive gun laws. Gun laws are pretty much in the sole discretion of the state. We do have some Federal restrictions (ATF) but most of the laws are on the state level, since the federal ones would be restricted by the 2nd Amendment.

The federal gun laws have passed the supreme court's scrutiny, but it has been a while since they have had a gun case too my knowledge.

To sum up, the second amendment only applies to the Feds. States can ignore it. The first amendment however, has been applied to the states, so they cannot ignore it. Here's a link for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

If you are in Virginia, you are good. Open carry is legal, used to do it all the time when I lived there. Check out the VCDL. www.vcdl.org Good group.

[Dan_Kane]

I'm a VCDL member as it happens :-) They do great work and have improved the situation here in VA for many years...I carry openly or concealed at my discretion without much concern (National Parks is a PITA). When I contrast our state with many others around the nation, I count my blessings!

I'm still reeling from this revelation...I was under the impression that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that (since the end of states' rights) no aspect of state constitutions or laws may contradict it.

I have to say that if this is not the case, what is the point of having a constitution? Even in my preferred political configuration (confederacy) there is still a uniting constitution that defines a broad framework for the principles under which the confederacy is established.

Now I'm really confused...

[Dan_Kane]

Add into the mix Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several States"

If the 2nd amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms (albeit incidentally), how can (in light of the above clause) any state ignore this?

[Dan_Kane]

The final nail in the coffin comes from Article 6 Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"

Perhaps the reason the States do not ignore the 2nd amendmnet is because they know that complete abrogation would never pass constitutional muster...but that 'regulating' as stringently as possible doesn't ruffle legislative feathers? Are there any states that completely ban all firearms?

[Matthew]

OK, if you keep this up, I'm going to have to get my old class notes and casebooks out! ;D

There is more to Constitutional law than the Constitution. Case law from the Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution means. The privileges and immunities clause has been limited by case law to prohibit states from discriminating against a citizen of another state. A leading case involved a resident of Vermont who wanted to practice law in New Hampshire. The NH Bar required its members to live in NH in order to get a law license. The Supreme Court held that requirement violated the P&I Clause. Basically, while states can regulate behavior, these regulations are not without restraint from the US Constitution.

However, only the parts of the US Constitution that are incorporated against the states. Remember the US Constitution was only a limit on the Federal Gov't. Therefore since the Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states, it doesn't restrain them.

The state's are restrained by their own constitutions however. Here's a segment from MA's State Constitution. "Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."

As you know MA has some of the most restrictive laws in the country. Now, you might be right if a state tried to ban guns all together. It seems that a city tried to do that recently. (In California I think) The ordinance was struck down.

[Matthew]

As for why we should have a US Constitution: It is important because the founders viewed the Federal government as the biggest threat to freedoms. State governments were viewed as much easier to effect change in. And if you didn't like what a state was doing you could vote with your feet and move to another one. However, no matter which state you were in, you knew the limits on the Feds.

I think it was a mistake not to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights against the states. If these truly are fundamental rights (I believe the are) Then all governments Fed or State should be limited by them.

In many ways you still see the effects of having people vote with their feet, since liberals are concentrated in the northeast and west coast. (And of course, college towns)

[Matthew]

The supremacy clause argument is valid, except again the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states, so there is nothing to supercede the states.

It would be interesting to see if a state tried to completely ban guns if the court would incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states.

[Dan_Kane]

Very interesting discussion Matthew, thanks :-)

I appreciate that the 2nd specifically relates to militia, and is a constraint on the federal government. However, in crafting this constraint, it incidentally (and necessarily) affirms the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

My opinion is that this is indeed an "immunity" (under the P & I clause) - an immunity from governmental arms prohibition. Hence my assertion thatt the P & I clause binds the States to honor it...in addition to which, the Supremacy clause should further strengthen this position.

I agree it would be interesting to see what would happen if a state tried to totally prohibit firearms! Although there is, in my mind, no questionthat the 2nd should be incorporated, I do worry about what an 'activist' court may decide. IMHO this is why the SCOTUS has generally refused to hear 2nd amendment cases...they don't want a shitstorm ;-)

Where exactly does the practice of "incorporation" come from? I cannot find reference to this process in the Constitution itself...how was it derived?

[lostone1413]

Lostone, the ability of a city to pass gun laws depends on the wording of the State's Constitution and State law. Some states reserve all gun laws to the state legislature, and refuse to allow cities the ability to pass gun laws. (Virginia is one)
On the other hand some states allow cities the power.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to the states, they are free to ignore it if they choose. It only applies to the Feds.


I don't know if i'd agree with that. When the territories join the United States they had to agree to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution being the law of the land I can't see how the states can get by without upholding the Constitution. It's the same Constitution they agreed to abide by to join the Union in the first place

[Matthew]

Lostone, read over the above posts. They address your concerns.

Dan, I haven't forgotten our discussion, just covered up right now.

[Matthew]

Hey Dan, sorry for the delay. You won't find anything about incorporation in the Constitution. It is all based on Supreme Court case law. Here is a link that explains it better than I could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights

My personal theory is that it was assumed by the founders that state government would be easily accessible to the common person, so the states would never try to infringe on basic rights, as the representatives would be voted out right away. Now we know how inaccessible state government is.

I have no real evidence on this theory, just my two cents.

[Dan_Kane]

Thanks Matthew, that link explains a lot - always being cautious about trusting wikipedia too much ;-)

I think that, independently, I had understood the Constitution in a similar manner to that described.

There are clear indications in the US Constitution that the Founding Fathers intended there to be some commonly applicable themes - of peoples' rights and governmental constraint - across the several States.

Obviously, when it comes to matters of law in the States, dispute can arise as to whether such law falls within the purview of such limitations. I can understand the need to formalize this process as "incorporation".

You learn something new every day ;-) Thanks Matt