Incorporation Doctrine
The
Fourteenth Amendment reads, “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.”
This writing was interpreted two ways by the American Court system in
its application to the states; the incorporation doctrine and the
selective incorporation doctrine. The concept of “incorporated”
doctrines was first applied to protections under the Bill of Rights
that were then applied to the States. Any state law or policy that
violated a Bill of Rights Protection, was said to violated the
incorporated, or included, protections. The incorporation doctrine,
also referred to as the “total incorporation,” was preached by
Justice Hugo Black who interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's due
process clause to mean it applied all the protections provided under
the Bill of Rights to the States. The second interpretation,
currently held by the Court, applies most, but not all, of the
protections of the first ten amendments to the States; the Seventh
Amendment has not been applied to the Stats by the Court. Under
selective incorporation, States have the ability to deny rights
protected by the Bill of Rights, however these rights are still fully
applied to the national government.
Fundamental Freedoms
Fundamental
freedoms are freedoms basic principles of law that serves as the
basis of an idea or system. These freedom are nationalized, meaning
that they apply equally to both the federal and state levels of
government. The freedoms that make up the basis of the United Stated
are are followed:
Court Case: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - Similar to District of Columbia v. Hellar the case concerned the city of Chicago and the village of Oak Parks along with Otis McDonald, who was the petitioner. Otis’ lawyers argued that owning a firearm was a given right and part of his “immunities as a citizen of the United States.” They also argued that the narrow interpretation of the second amendment, as adopted in the Slaughter House cases be rejected. The defense argued that the second amendment did not apply to the states. Heller could not be used by the petitioner because it struck down laws made by a district and DC is not a state. So this case clarified what applied to the states in terms of the second amendment. Justice Alito delivered the opinion and the court had decided that the second amendment does apply fully to the states so therefore there could not be any laws restricting guns.
- Freedom
of Speech
- Freedom
of the Press
- Freedom
of Religion
- “A
wall of separation between Church and State”
- “A
wall of separation between Church and State”
- Freedom
of Petition
- Freedom
of Assembly
- Freedom
of Association
- Freedom
of Privacy
- The
right to be left alone and not to be spied upon
- The
right to have your tax records, school records, medical records,
financial records kept private and to be asked before anyone can
look at your records
- The
right of privacy in your personal sex life
- Privacy
rights and abortion
- The
right to be left alone and not to be spied upon
Court Case: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - Similar to District of Columbia v. Hellar the case concerned the city of Chicago and the village of Oak Parks along with Otis McDonald, who was the petitioner. Otis’ lawyers argued that owning a firearm was a given right and part of his “immunities as a citizen of the United States.” They also argued that the narrow interpretation of the second amendment, as adopted in the Slaughter House cases be rejected. The defense argued that the second amendment did not apply to the states. Heller could not be used by the petitioner because it struck down laws made by a district and DC is not a state. So this case clarified what applied to the states in terms of the second amendment. Justice Alito delivered the opinion and the court had decided that the second amendment does apply fully to the states so therefore there could not be any laws restricting guns.