About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 Stan. L. Rev. 5 (1949-1950)
Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights: The Original Understanding

handle is hein.journals/stflr2 and id is 33 raw text is: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? Ti O IGiNAL UNDERSTANDING CH~is FAMIAN My study of the historical events that culminated in the Four- teenth Amendment, and the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects that the provisions of the Amendment's first section, separately, and as a whole, were intended to accomplish was to make the Bill of Rights, applicable to the states. With full knowledge of the import of the Barron decision, the fram- ers and backers of the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed its pur- pose to be to overturn the constitutional rule that case had an- nounced. This historical purpose has never received full considera- tion or exposition in any opinion of this Court interpreting the Amendment.-Mr. Justice Black dissenting, in Adamson v. Cali- fornia, 332 U.S. 46, 71 (1947). The question to be explored is, was this the understanding of the import of the privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection clauses of Section i of the Fourteenth Amend- ment, or of any one of those clauses, at the time the Amendment was adopted? This involves an attempt to apprehend the views of the members of the Congress that proposed the Amendment, and to appreciate the significance of the action of the state legis- latures when they considered ratification. This is not a merely academic question. It presents itself in- sistently today because Justices of the Supreme Court are pre- pared to make decisions turn upon their reading of the historical record. The conclusion of the minority in the Adamson case,' in June 1947, that a fresh reading of the history warranted the over- turning of a long line of decisions, was reaffirmed by the same Justices in Wolf v. Colorado2 in June 1949. The line of cases is discussed by my colleague, Professor Morrison, in the article that followsa The present discussion looks to events in i866-68 or soon * Professor of Law and of Political Science, Stanford University. See also President's Page, page 3, supra. 1. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947). 2. 338 U.S. 25 (1949). 3. See p. 140 inIra.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most