1. The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights
The United States was created by an agreement between ex-colonies, who had become independent states.
They agreed to join together in a federation, and to cede certain powers to a national federal government, powers such as national defence or the regulation of interstate commerce, which could really only be done at a national level.
But the states wanted to retain all the power they had in other areas. There were many anti-federalists in the states who distrusted federal government and were afraid that it would become tyrannical. They had fought long and hard for their liberty and they didn’t want to lose it.
These anti-federalists were not happy with the US constitution that was drawn-up in Philadelphia (1787). They thought it gave too much power to federal government.
As a result they said that they would only sign it on the condition that additional restrictions were put in place to curtail federal power, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states.
The states agreed on 10 additional restrictions on federal power.
These were ratified in 1791 and became the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Collectively they are known as the Bill of Rights.
SHOW THEM – note in preamble – underlined version
We will not study all of them – the ones we are interested in are
1 – the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion
2 – the right to bear arms
4,5, 6 – restrictions relating to criminal procedure
8 – prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment

2. The Bill of Rights 1
What is the Bill of Rights
the first ten amendments to the US Constitution
What was its original aim?
The BOR was intended to/supposed to curtail (= limit) the power of federal government
The US Constitution had been ratified in 1789.
The original Constitution, contained very few guarantees of individual rights .
Why? Because the framers were most concerned about describing how the federal gov would work.
However, many anti-federalists were unhappy because they thought the Constitution gave too much power to federal government.
Remember - the United States was created by an agreement between ex-colonies, who had become independent states.
They agreed to join together in a federation, and to cede certain powers to a national federal government, powers such as national defence or the regulation of interstate commerce, which could really only be done at a national level.
But the states wanted to retain all the power they had in other areas. There were many anti-federalists in the states who distrusted federal government and were afraid that it would become tyrannical. They had fought long and hard for their liberty and they didn’t want to lose it.
These anti-federalists were not happy with the US constitution that was drawn-up in Philadelphia (1787). They thought it gave too much power to federal government.
So they said that they would only sign it on the condition that additional restrictions were put in place to curtail federal power, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states.
The states agreed on 10 additional restrictions on federal power.
These were ratified in 1791 and became the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So who or what was it intended to protect? The BOR was intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states against the federal government.
So what are these rights?
The first eight amendments contained a combination of
personal freedoms : freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms –fundamental personal freedoms which the gov would not be allowed to abridge or curtail
procedural protections : rules which the government was required to or obliged to follow when it interfered with a citizen’s private property during investigations and trials – things like the right to a speedy and public trial
Did the states have to respect the Bill of Rights? No
One example is that although Article 1 forbids the federal gov from having an official religion, there were official “state” churches up to the 1820s.

3. 1 The Bill of Rights The first ten amendments to the US Constitution
What is the Bill of Rights
the first ten amendments to the US Constitution
What was its original aim?
The BOR was intended to/supposed to curtail (= limit) the power of federal government
The US Constitution had been ratified in 1789.
The original Constitution, contained very few guarantees of individual rights .
Why? Because the framers were most concerned about describing how the federal gov would work.
However, many anti-federalists were unhappy because they thought the Constitution gave too much power to federal government.
Remember - the United States was created by an agreement between ex-colonies, who had become independent states.
They agreed to join together in a federation, and to cede certain powers to a national federal government, powers such as national defence or the regulation of interstate commerce, which could really only be done at a national level.
But the states wanted to retain all the power they had in other areas. There were many anti-federalists in the states who distrusted federal government and were afraid that it would become tyrannical. They had fought long and hard for their liberty and they didn’t want to lose it.
These anti-federalists were not happy with the US constitution that was drawn-up in Philadelphia (1787). They thought it gave too much power to federal government.
So they said that they would only sign it on the condition that additional restrictions were put in place to curtail federal power, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states.
The states agreed on 10 additional restrictions on federal power.
These were ratified in 1791 and became the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So who or what was it intended to protect? The BOR was intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states against the federal government.
So what are these rights?
The first eight amendments contained a combination of
personal freedoms : freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms –fundamental personal freedoms which the gov would not be allowed to abridge or curtail
procedural protections : rules which the government was required to or obliged to follow when it interfered with a citizen’s private property during investigations and trials – things like the right to a speedy and public trial
Did the states have to respect the Bill of Rights? No
One example is that although Article 1 forbids the federal gov from having an official religion, there were official “state” churches up to the 1820s.

4. 1 The Bill of Rights The first ten amendments to the US Constitution
It was intended to curtail the power of federal government
What is the Bill of Rights
the first ten amendments to the US Constitution
What was its original aim?
The BOR was intended to/supposed to curtail (= limit) the power of federal government
The US Constitution had been ratified in 1789.
The original Constitution, contained very few guarantees of individual rights .
Why? Because the framers were most concerned about describing how the federal gov would work.
However, many anti-federalists were unhappy because they thought the Constitution gave too much power to federal government.
Remember - the United States was created by an agreement between ex-colonies, who had become independent states.
They agreed to join together in a federation, and to cede certain powers to a national federal government, powers such as national defence or the regulation of interstate commerce, which could really only be done at a national level.
But the states wanted to retain all the power they had in other areas. There were many anti-federalists in the states who distrusted federal government and were afraid that it would become tyrannical. They had fought long and hard for their liberty and they didn’t want to lose it.
These anti-federalists were not happy with the US constitution that was drawn-up in Philadelphia (1787). They thought it gave too much power to federal government.
So they said that they would only sign it on the condition that additional restrictions were put in place to curtail federal power, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states.
The states agreed on 10 additional restrictions on federal power.
These were ratified in 1791 and became the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So who or what was it intended to protect? The BOR was intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states against the federal government.
So what are these rights?
The first eight amendments contained a combination of
personal freedoms : freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms –fundamental personal freedoms which the gov would not be allowed to abridge or curtail
procedural protections : rules which the government was required to or obliged to follow when it interfered with a citizen’s private property during investigations and trials – things like the right to a speedy and public trial
Did the states have to respect the Bill of Rights? No
One example is that although Article 1 forbids the federal gov from having an official religion, there were official “state” churches up to the 1820s.

5. 1 The Bill of Rights The first ten amendments to the US Constitution
It was intended to curtail the power of federal government
Ratified in 1791
What is the Bill of Rights
the first ten amendments to the US Constitution
What was its original aim?
The BOR was intended to/supposed to curtail (= limit) the power of federal government
The US Constitution had been ratified in 1789.
The original Constitution, contained very few guarantees of individual rights .
Why? Because the framers were most concerned about describing how the federal gov would work.
However, many anti-federalists were unhappy because they thought the Constitution gave too much power to federal government.
Remember - the United States was created by an agreement between ex-colonies, who had become independent states.
They agreed to join together in a federation, and to cede certain powers to a national federal government, powers such as national defence or the regulation of interstate commerce, which could really only be done at a national level.
But the states wanted to retain all the power they had in other areas. There were many anti-federalists in the states who distrusted federal government and were afraid that it would become tyrannical. They had fought long and hard for their liberty and they didn’t want to lose it.
These anti-federalists were not happy with the US constitution that was drawn-up in Philadelphia (1787). They thought it gave too much power to federal government.
So they said that they would only sign it on the condition that additional restrictions were put in place to curtail federal power, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states.
The states agreed on 10 additional restrictions on federal power.
These were ratified in 1791 and became the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So who or what was it intended to protect? The BOR was intended to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the sovereignty of states against the federal government.
So what are these rights?
The first eight amendments contained a combination of
personal freedoms : freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms –fundamental personal freedoms which the gov would not be allowed to abridge or curtail
procedural protections : rules which the government was required to or obliged to follow when it interfered with a citizen’s private property during investigations and trials – things like the right to a speedy and public trial
Did the states have to respect the Bill of Rights? No
One example is that although Article 1 forbids the federal gov from having an official religion, there were official “state” churches up to the 1820s.

6. Barron v Baltimore (1833) 2
Barron sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf
Then, in the case Barron v Baltimore, that was challenged.
Barron was a businessman. He sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf . City, local govt, not the federal government.
What part of the Constitution did he base his claim on?
He based his claim on the « just compensation » clause of the 5th Amendment (if the state takes your property it has to give you fair compensation)
What did the Court decide in Barron v Baltimore?
the court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and local gov, but only to federal government.
It stayed that way for 30 years.

7. Barron v Baltimore (1833) 2
Barron sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf
He based his claim against the city on the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment
Then, in the case Barron v Baltimore, that was challenged.
Barron was a businessman. He sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf . City, local govt, not the federal government.
What part of the Constitution did he base his claim on?
He based his claim on the « just compensation » clause of the 5th Amendment (if the state takes your property it has to give you fair compensation)
What did the Court decide in Barron v Baltimore?
the court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and local gov, but only to federal government.
It stayed that way for 30 years.

8. Barron v Baltimore (1833) 2
Barron sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf
He based his claim against the city on the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment
The USSC held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states or local government
Then, in the case Barron v Baltimore, that was challenged.
Barron was a businessman. He sued for compensation because the city of Baltimore had destroyed his wharf . City, local govt, not the federal government.
What part of the Constitution did he base his claim on?
He based his claim on the « just compensation » clause of the 5th Amendment (if the state takes your property it has to give you fair compensation)
What did the Court decide in Barron v Baltimore?
the court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and local gov, but only to federal government.
It stayed that way for 30 years.

9. The Civil War and the end of slavery3
The 13th amendment (1865) abolished slavery.
The Civil War changed things. As you know, the American civil war was fought largely on the issue of slavery. After the Union’s victory in 1865 ( ), the thitreenth amendment (1865) abolished slavery.

10. The 14th Amendment (1868) 4
The US Congress then enacted the 14th amendment in 1868.
Why was the 14th amendment introduced?
To curtail the power of the states. Why?
The aim was to protect the newly-freed slaves, against the states.
Directly after the civil war, the south was place of lawless tyranny. Freed slaves called freed men were subject to discrimination, violence and murder, including lynchings. This the time that the Klu Klux Klan started – organization aimed to subjugate black population through violence. The south States didn’t protect the freed slaves or their supporters. State and local law officers were often part of the problem, they were involved in this violence against the freed slaves, or they ignored it. The state courts were biased, it was often impossible for freed slaves to get any kind of justice. There were even fears that southern states could try to reintroduce slavery.
In the Constitution, there was something called the "three-fifths" clause* which meant when the population of a state was counted to decide how many representatives it should have in Congress, only 3/5 of the black population was taken into account – clear indication that blacks were not seen as citizens.

11. The 14th Amendment (1868) 5
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
How did it limit state powers?
It created a national citizenship
black Americans are citizens of the USA, and they have rights
2, 3 and 4) It protects the rights of citizens against the states
Three very important clauses, P=I, DP clause, EP clause
P+I =abridge ? Rights
DP – lynchings, where state law enforcers are involved EP
What happens if a state violates the 14th amendment?
The citizens whose rights have been violated can file suit against the state in federal court – gives citizens a legal weapon against the states.
Privileges and immunities – no one can take away the rights and protections of US citizens.
What are the are these privileges and immunities? What are these rights?
Does this mean that the BoR now applies to the states?

12. The 14th Amendment (1868) 5
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
How did it limit state powers?
It created a national citizenship
black Americans are citizens of the USA, and they have rights
2, 3 and 4) It protects the rights of citizens against the states
Three very important clauses, P=I, DP clause, EP clause
P+I =abridge ? Rights
DP – lynchings, where state law enforcers are involved EP
What happens if a state violates the 14th amendment?
The citizens whose rights have been violated can file suit against the state in federal court – gives citizens a legal weapon against the states.
Privileges and immunities – no one can take away the rights and protections of US citizens.
What are the are these privileges and immunities? What are these rights?
Does this mean that the BoR now applies to the states?

13. The 14th Amendment (1868) 5
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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;
How did it limit state powers?
It created a national citizenship
black Americans are citizens of the USA, and they have rights
2, 3 and 4) It protects the rights of citizens against the states
Three very important clauses, P=I, DP clause, EP clause
P+I =abridge ? Rights
DP – lynchings, where state law enforcers are involved EP
What happens if a state violates the 14th amendment?
The citizens whose rights have been violated can file suit against the state in federal court – gives citizens a legal weapon against the states.
Privileges and immunities – no one can take away the rights and protections of US citizens.
What are the are these privileges and immunities? What are these rights?
Does this mean that the BoR now applies to the states?

14. The 14th Amendment (1868) 5
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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.
How did it limit state powers?
It created a national citizenship
black Americans are citizens of the USA, and they have rights
2, 3 and 4) It protects the rights of citizens against the states
Three very important clauses, P=I, DP clause, EP clause
P+I =abridge ? Rights
DP – lynchings, where state law enforcers are involved EP
What happens if a state violates the 14th amendment?
The citizens whose rights have been violated can file suit against the state in federal court – gives citizens a legal weapon against the states.
Privileges and immunities – no one can take away the rights and protections of US citizens.
What are the are these privileges and immunities? What are these rights?
Does this mean that the BoR now applies to the states?

15. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?6
What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in the Slaughterhouse cases (1875)? Slaughterhouse cases (1875), the Supreme Court said NO, the P + I clause does not render the BoR binding on the states

16. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?6
The Slaughterhouse cases (1875)
The Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th amendment did not render the whole Bill of Rights binding on the states.
What did the U.S. Supreme Court hold in the Slaughterhouse cases (1875)? Slaughterhouse cases (1875), the Supreme Court said NO, the P + I clause does not render the BoR binding on the states

17. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?8
Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago (1897):
In 1897 Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad Co went before the Supreme Court because Chicago had appropriated some of their land and not given them “just compensation”.
Why was this case important?
The court agreed that the fifth amendment says that government cannot appropriate private property without giving just compensation, and that this is part of the 14th amendments “due process” clause –
So we can say that
The USSC held that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause implicitly included the 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation
Another way of saying that is that the court incorporated 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation into the 14th Am’s due process clause
However, the approach the Court took was not to say that due process covered the whole bill of rights, so the whole bill of rights was now binding on the states. What they said was that this one clause of the Bill of Rights was now included in “due process”.

18. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?8
Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago (1897):
The USSC held that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause implicitly included the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of just compensation
In 1897 Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad Co went before the Supreme Court because Chicago had appropriated some of their land and not given them “just compensation”.
Why was this case important?
The court agreed that the fifth amendment says that government cannot appropriate private property without giving just compensation, and that this is part of the 14th amendments “due process” clause –
So we can say that
The USSC held that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause implicitly included the 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation
Another way of saying that is that the court incorporated 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation into the 14th Am’s due process clause
However, the approach the Court took was not to say that due process covered the whole bill of rights, so the whole bill of rights was now binding on the states. What they said was that this one clause of the Bill of Rights was now included in “due process”.

19. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?8
Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago (1897):
The USSC held that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause implicitly included the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of just compensation
= The USSC incorporated the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation clause into the 14th Amendment’s due process clause
In 1897 Quincy Railroad Co v Chicago, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad Co went before the Supreme Court because Chicago had appropriated some of their land and not given them “just compensation”.
Why was this case important?
The court agreed that the fifth amendment says that government cannot appropriate private property without giving just compensation, and that this is part of the 14th amendments “due process” clause –
So we can say that
The USSC held that the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause implicitly included the 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation
Another way of saying that is that the court incorporated 5th amendment’s guarantee of just compensation into the 14th Am’s due process clause
However, the approach the Court took was not to say that due process covered the whole bill of rights, = it rendered it binding on the states. What they said was that this one clause of the Bill of Rights was now included in “due process”.

20. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?10
Gitlow v New York (1925):
Then In 1925 there was another important case:
Gitlow v New York (1925):
Why is this case important?
The USSC incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause into the 14th Amendment
The court held that the Due Process clause protects certain “fundamental personal rights and liberties” against the states – they didn’t really justify how the due process clause does this, but they said it does and since then it’s been accepted that it does

21. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?10
Gitlow v New York (1925):
The USSC incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause into the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause
Then In 1925 there was another important case:
Gitlow v New York (1925):
Why is this case important?
The USSC incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause into the 14th Amendment
The court held that the Due Process clause protects certain “fundamental personal rights and liberties” against the states – they didn’t really justify how the due process clause does this, but they said it does and since then it’s been accepted that it does

22. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?10
Gitlow v New York (1925):
The USSC incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause into the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause
The court held that the Due Process clause protects certain “fundamental personal rights and liberties” against the states
Then In 1925 there was another important case:
Gitlow v New York (1925):
Why is this case important?
The USSC incorporated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause into the 14th Amendment
The court held that the Due Process clause protects certain “fundamental personal rights and liberties” against the states – they didn’t really justify how the due process clause does this, but they said it does and since then it’s been accepted that it does

23. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Rejected total incorporation
= the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment does not render the whole Bill of Rights binding on the states.
Finally, in Palko v Conneticut the court explained explicitly how it was going to use the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deal with the Bill of Rights and applying it to the states.
What did the Court do in Palko?
It established the doctrine of selective incorporation – judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so protected against infringement by the states

24. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?12
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Established selective incorporation
Finally, in Palko v Conneticut the court explained explicitly how it was going to use the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deal with the Bill of Rights and applying it to the states.
What did the Court do in Palko?
It established the doctrine of selective incorporation – judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so protected against infringement by the states

25. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?12
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Established selective incorporation
= a judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Finally, in Palko v Conneticut the court explained explicitly how it was going to use the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deal with the Bill of Rights and applying it to the states.
What did the Court do in Palko?
It established the doctrine of selective incorporation – judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so protected against infringement by the states

26. Did the Bill of Rights now apply to the states?12
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Established selective incorporation
= a judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and so protected against infringement by the states.
Finally, in Palko v Conneticut the court explained explicitly how it was going to use the due process clause of the 14th amendment to deal with the Bill of Rights and applying it to the states.
What did the Court do in Palko?
It established the doctrine of selective incorporation – judicial doctrine used to establish which clauses of the Bill of Rights should be incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so protected against infringement by the states

27. Selective incorporation13
what it means is that the court considers each clause of the bill of rights individually and decides if it should apply to the states.
This happens as cases arise. so you can see in the list on p3 (given out and updayted?) that each different freedom or protection of the BoR had been brought to the court as part of a case, the court has discussed it, and decided whether the states should be obliged to respect it.
How does the court decide?
Rights which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” are incorporated. (from Palko)
Through the twentieth century the court’s definition of what is covered by this clause grew and grew and grew. During the twentieth century, the Sc has said that almost all of the parts of the first eight amendments also apply to the states – ie they have been selectively incorporated.
There was one period which is particularly important in the history of selective incorporation. When is that?
The era of the Warren Court

28. Selective incorporation13
The courts examine the individual clauses of the Bill of Rights as cases arise.
what it means is that the court considers each clause of the bill of rights individually and decides if it should apply to the states.
This happens as cases arise. so you can see in the list on p3 (given out and updayted?) that each different freedom or protection of the BoR had been brought to the court as part of a case, the court has discussed it, and decided whether the states should be obliged to respect it.
How does the court decide?
Rights which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” are incorporated. (from Palko)
Through the twentieth century the court’s definition of what is covered by this clause grew and grew and grew. During the twentieth century, the Sc has said that almost all of the parts of the first eight amendments also apply to the states – ie they have been selectively incorporated.
There was one period which is particularly important in the history of selective incorporation. When is that?
The era of the Warren Court

29. Selective incorporation13
The courts examine the individual clauses of the Bill of Rights as cases arise.
Rights which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (Palko v Conneticut) are incorporated.
what it means is that the court considers each clause of the bill of rights individually and decides if it should apply to the states.
This happens as cases arise. so you can see in the list on p3 (given out and updayted?) that each different freedom or protection of the BoR had been brought to the court as part of a case, the court has discussed it, and decided whether the states should be obliged to respect it.
How does the court decide?
Rights which are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” and “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” are incorporated. (from Palko)
Through the twentieth century the court’s definition of what is covered by this clause grew and grew and grew. During the twentieth century, the Sc has said that almost all of the parts of the first eight amendments also apply to the states – ie they have been selectively incorporated.
There was one period which is particularly important in the history of selective incorporation. When is that?
The era of the Warren Court

30. 14 The Warren Court Why is it important, what happened?
USSC during period when Earl Warren was Chief Justice ( )
Time of huge social change in teh US, in particular teh civil rights movement
The Supreme Court got into teh spirit of this
This is the period when most of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights were incorporated against the states – indeed most of the first rights which had not already been incorporated were incorporated during this period
Remebered as a period when American’s civil rigts and protections were sterngthened by teh SC.
Since the Warren Court, a few more clauses of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, including most recently?
So today, at the beginning of the 21 century respecting this little due process clause requires the states to respect a huge variety of different rights.
The rest of the course will look in more detail at what those rights are.

31. The Warren Court 14
= the USSC during the period when Earl Warren was Chief Justice ( )
incorporated most of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights against the states
Why is it important, what happened?
USSC during period when Earl Warren was Chief Justice ( )
Time of huge social change in teh US, in particular teh civil rights movement
The Supreme Court got into teh spirit of this
This is the period when most of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights were incorporated against the states – indeed most of the first rights which had not already been incorporated were incorporated during this period
Remebered as a period when American’s civil rigts and protections were sterngthened by teh SC.
Since the Warren Court, a few more clauses of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, including most recently?
So today, at the beginning of the 21 century respecting this little due process clause requires the states to respect a huge variety of different rights.
The rest of the course will look in more detail at what those rights are.