Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Applicability to Federal government only?

I would question if this was clearly the case, or rather was recognized as vague and then clarified in Court decisions, such as Gitlow v. New York. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was generally viewed that the federal constitution had only limited applicability to state law until after the the American Civil War, otherwise the argument for "states' rights" make no sense. Then began an concerted effort at "incorporation," a rolling in of state law under federal law which continued throughout the twentieth century. Civil rights is nearly impossible without the legal doctrine that the federal constitution "applies" (whatever that means) to state law as well. You also will find some convoluted rulings about how state law is not bound by the federal constitution. Reese v. U.S. is the first example that comes to mind. So, whether or not the first amendment was applicable only to the federal government and not the states depends on which period of time in U.S. history to which you're referring. Russell D. Jones 08:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally agreed. I mentioned Gitlow rather than Reese, even though Reese was earlier, in that I recalled Reese to be less clear than Gitlow.

Not to digress too far, but perhaps some of this might go into constitutional law, and we should have a {{main|Constitutional law}} tag on this. In the John Yoo article, there's some material on original intent versus original interpretation, even well before the Civil War. I do hear a lot of arguments about strict constructionism that don't agree with writings of some Framers.

As much as it might frustrate some current political commentary, the Constitution, and constitutional law, just don't fit in a bumper sticker or sound bite. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)