"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In OT Guns more Guns on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:26:20 GMT, by
Gunner, we read:

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in
Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that
understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting
his claim on the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property
not be taken for public use "without just compensation." Marshall
ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on
the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is
not applicable to the legislation of the states."


Good stuff Gunner!

Strabo, you just got through telling me the opposite. Here's what I had
posted:

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Here's your response:


Simple answer. They agreed with the power restrictions of the
federal constitution.

Now, Gunner posts this:

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states.

And you say "good stuff."

Are you paying attention to what you're arguing about? If so, why are you
talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Ed Huntress