Barron brought a Takings claim against the City of Baltimore for damage caused to his property as a result of municipal street construction. The issue was whether the Bill of Rights (and in particular the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment) restricts State and Local government action.
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court and concludes that the Bill of Rights is not a limitation on the power of state governments.
P. 441: He says the issue is clear. It is “of great importance” but “not of much difficulty.” What is the basis for his certainty?
Purpose: The purpose of the Constitution was to establish and limit the national government. State government already existed and the people of each State had already enacted state constitutions providing “such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated.” (P. 441).
Text: “Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have . . . expressed that intention.” (P. 442).
History: Marshall says that “it is universally understood” that historically the Bill of Rights was adopted “to guard against the abuse of power” by the new national government. “These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government – not against those of the local governments. (P. 442).
And yet today the typical Bill of Rights case involves a person defending his free speech rights against state laws restriction freedom of speech, or a criminal defendant seeking his Fourth Amendment rights against a state criminal prosecution, or a landowner seeking his rights under the Takings Clause against a state law taking his property with just compensation. How is that possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment