Home » LAW » Barron v. Baltimore

Barron v. Baltimore

This case is foundational accross many of my classes.

PolS 353: read everything with an emphasis on the takings clause
PolS 354: skim with an emphasis on the incorporation doctrine
PolS 356, 358, and 359: skim with an emphasis on non-incorporation

See Lyles textbook [ONLINE] or file below


27 Comments

  1. Amy SiddiquiJun 10, 2021
    The Supreme Court explicitly states that the Bill of Rights, aka the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, is only applicable to the national government. Their reasoning for this was that the Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the country and their government – not the States’ government. Therefore Barron’s argument of the 5th amendment would cause him to lose the case, as that was not applicable to the city of Baltimore, but to the national government.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Sebastian Moscoso
    Sebastian MoscosoJun 9, 2021
    In this case we see that the concept of federalism being born. We see that the bill of rights pertains to the federal government and not the the state government. Specifically we see that the 5th amendment is protected by the federal government not state.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Alex Nguyen
    Alex NguyenJun 9, 2021
    In this case it was argued if the fifth amendment denied both the states and federal government from taking private property for public use without compensating the property owner. The court said that the limitation in the 5th amendment were intended to limit the powers of the national government not state government and reasoned that the supreme court had no jurisdiction since the 5th amendment was not applicable.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jacqueline Lopez
    Jacqueline LopezJun 9, 2021
    Barron v Baltimore is significant because the Court placed a limit on its own power ruling that the Bill of Rights do not apply to states. The Court pretty much said that if it was the federal government that had violated the person’s rights, they could step in, but since it was a city (part of a state) then they were powerless.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jarod Rhymes
    Jarod RhymesJun 9, 2021
    Question of whether or not the 5th amendment grants federal, state, or local governments the right to take and allocate private property for public use without necessary consent or payment of the owner.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Annalee Johnson
    Annalee JohnsonJun 9, 2021
    This case indicated that the Fifth Amendment was only intended to protect people from the federal government, leaving people vulnerable to unfair due process by the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Cassidy McLernon
    Cassidy McLernonJun 9, 2021
    John Barron was a wharf owner in Baltimore, and he claimed that construction by the city had diverted water flow to the harbor. Sand accumulated in the harbor and deprived him of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover his financial losses. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Baltimore, stating that the limitations on government found in the Fifth Amendment were intended to limit the powers of the national government, not the state governments.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Itsawong Pongreangrong
    Itsawong PongreangrongJun 9, 2021
    Barron was not protected by the Bill of Rights, which its duty is to protect people from unfair treat from the federal government but not state.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    David Warszewik
    David WarszewikJul 2, 2020
    This case established a precedent that the Bill of Rights does not protect against actions taken by the state governments, and helped define federalism.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kiera Gnatz
    Kiera GnatzJun 11, 2020
    This is a very significant case in that it is established that the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government and not the power of state governments. Because the 5th Amendment therefore is not applicable to the states, the city of Baltimore was not constitutionally obligated to pay Barron any sort of compensation for the loss of his land.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Augustas Tamavicius
    Augustas TamaviciusJun 9, 2020
    In Barron v. Baltimore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to state governments. Barron was awarded some compensation in trial court, however the Maryland Appellate Court reversed the decision, which was further upheld by the Court. Ultimately, this case upheld that the federal government can seize public property.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jamie Musso
    Jamie MussoJun 9, 2020
    This case determined that the bill of rights do not apply to state governments. This ruling makes it acceptable for governments to take private property for public use. I personally do not agree with eminent domain and don’t believe it is fair to especially homeowners, despite the “fair” compensation. If i lived in a home for 50 years and that is my home or even dream home, i don’t believe a “fair compensation” is acceptable enough to replace that
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Krystal Garcia Centeno
    Krystal Garcia CentenoJun 9, 2020
    This case define how federalism works in the Constitution and ruled that the Bill of Rights cannot be applied to the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Johnathon Giesecke
    Johnathon GieseckeJun 8, 2020
    The court rules that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states which I find odd.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Osikenoya Usman-Aliu
    Osikenoya Usman-AliuJun 8, 2020
    John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Mara Ortiz
    Mara OrtizJun 8, 2020
    Wow this was an interesting case. The court ruled that the bill of rights does not apply as it was determined that it only applies to the federal government and not the states. Honestly this doesn’t really make sense to me; you would think it would apply to both but apparently not.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Sarita Cavazos
    Sarita CavazosJun 8, 2020
    the court ruled that the bill of rights only pertains to the federal government in limiting power and protecting citizens, and not the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jared Cuthbertson
    Jared CuthbertsonJun 8, 2020
    The most interesting part of this case, for me, is the declaration that the bill of rights primarily applies to the federal government and not the states. This seems counter-intuitive to me. I feel that the rights provided to individuals in the bill of rights should all be guaranteed by the states as well.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    April Quevedo
    April QuevedoJun 8, 2020
    The Court unanimously decided Barron was not owed compensation for loss in profits by the City of Baltimore, as the Bill of Rights (including the right to just compensation) apply to the federal government alone.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Cheyenne Henry
    Cheyenne HenryJun 8, 2020
    The provisions of the first eight amendments applied only to the national government, not to the states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Matt Springer
    Matt SpringerJun 8, 2020
    In Barron v Baltimore, Barron, a wharf owner, sued the city of Baltimore for taking his property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Question of this case is: Does the Fifth Amendment apply to local governments more specifically individual states? The Court decided that the fifth amendment only applies to the federal government and not the states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Johanna Fernandez
    Johanna FernandezJun 8, 2020
    The case did show how the Bill of Rights could be applied and it wasn’t for state government but federal.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Amy Gordon
    Amy GordonJun 8, 2020
    This case ruled that the federal government was not qualified to adjudicate in cases where states take property from private property holders and/or owe them compensation in some way.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Brayden Dunstone
    Brayden DunstoneJun 8, 2020
    I always forget that it takes a court case for amendments to apply for the states. In Barron v. Balitmore, the Court ruled unanimously that that the “taking clause” in the 5th amendment was not meant to apply to states but rather only the federal government.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Martin Tully
    Martin TullyJun 8, 2020
    The 5th Amendment only applies to the U.S. Federal government and not the individual states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Brianna Moling
    Brianna MolingJun 8, 2020
    Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states and the federal government the right to take private property for public use without compensating the property’s owner? No, because the Fifth Amendment was intended to only apply to the federal government, Barron was no entitled to compensation.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Crystal Quevedo
    Crystal QuevedoJun 8, 2020
    The ct decided the prtoections of private property applied to the federal gvmt, not the states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Christopher Mathew
    Christopher MathewJun 8, 2020
    The Court ruled unanimously that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states or local governments, only the natl. government; this was a victory for states’ rights.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Tess Manke
    Tess MankeJun 8, 2020
    John Barron brought suit against the city of Baltimore because construction in the city caused an accumulation of sand in the harbor which reduced his profits and he wanted to recover a portion of his financial losses. Question: Does the 5th amendment deny the states and the government the right to take private property for public use without compensation? NO, the 5th amendment does not apply to the states, only the government. Barron was not entitled to compensation in this case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Blanca Henkle
    Blanca HenkleJun 13, 2019
    The Bill of Right applied only to the national government and not to the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Roaa Hussien
    Roaa HussienJun 5, 2019
    Mechanical Jurisprudence:
    (Y) judicial performance [policy making] <- X1 [facts] + X2 [precedent] + X3 [statute] + X4 [constitutional law] + [other legal factors] ….Xn Behavioral Jurisprudence: (Y) judicial performance [policymaking] <- X1 [race] + X2 [gender] + X3 [party] + X4 [legal training] + X5 [location] + X6 [appointing president] + other extra-legal factors + Xn Reply Comments above copied from original document Sana Ali Sana AliMay 30, 2019 Its interesting to see how back in 1833, the Bill of Rights, the 5th amendment in this specific case, did not apply to state governments. The clear divide between federal and local governments is so prominently shown here. Reply Comments above copied from original document Jacob Mattenson Jacob MattensonMay 29, 2019 It's strange to think that, as per the logic of this case, the Fifth Amendment does not apply to state or lower governments. But seeing as the Bill of Rights is at least theoretically meant to be the basic civil rights for all Americans, was there a future case that expanded the umbrella of the Bills throughout the political system? Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userMay 29, 2019 it was interesting to read and learn that the bill of rights only applies on the federal level and not state, but i can't help but feel like his rights were violated and in turn damaged his business. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 16, 2018 The 5th amendment was not applicable to the states and thus Marshall concludes that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case and the lower court ruling stands. Reply Comments above copied from original document Julie Walsh Julie WalshJun 15, 2018 Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the owner of the property? Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 14, 2018 The Bill of Rights does not apply to state and local government, only to Federal government. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 14, 2018 This case established what exactly was intended by Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights, the Takings Clause. It was ruled that, yes, local government can rightfully seize your land for public use or public benefit (as justified by the courts) however, in so far as justly compensated. Individual inconvenience is outweighed by public benefit. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 14, 2018 The question in this case was does the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution apply to local government? The Court ruled that it did not. Justice John Marshall writing for the Supreme Court of the United States observed that the framers intended the amendments of the United States Constitution to apply only to the Federal government and not the states. Did the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore also violate the Barron's rights under the 14th amendment? Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 14, 2018 Marshall claims in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights was meant to only limit the federal government and not the states. This allowed for States to have drastically different sets of rules and was a significant boost for those who supported states rights. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 12, 2018 Does the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution apply to local government? No, Each state formulated their own constitution, so the Amendments did not apply to them. Article 1 Section: 10 of the Constitution provides an exclusive list of the restriction upon state government. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 11, 2018 Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? Holding: No Reasoning: Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights (the) as an exclusive check on the federal government, Marshall reasoned that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. This meant that Barron was not entitled to damages for his property loss from the city under the Fifth Amendment provision on just compensation for a government taking. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 11, 2018 This case is significant because it places a limit on federal judiciary. Each State established a constitution for itself. In that constitution each state provided limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government. The people of the United States framed such a government as they believed that this would promote their interests and best adapt to their situation. The powers they granted to this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally applicable to the government created by the instrument. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that if the bill of rights conflicted with the state constitution then the states cannot be forced to uphold it. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 11, 2018 The Court said that the Bill of Rights was intended to regulate the federal government, but not state governments. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. This was a big victory for states' rights. This led to states being able to restrict rights. Reply Comments above copied from original document Jung Kim Jung KimJun 11, 2018 The court deemed that the 5th amendment did not apply to states, only to the federal government and that Barron was not entitled to compensation from local government. Marshall stated that the original intent of the founders was to limit the federal government rather than state. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 11, 2018 The significance of Barron v Baltimore, in fact just like in Marbury does not really matter in terms of the appellant ( in this case Barron ) but rather the Marshall court setting the constitutional precedent for a future matter involving conflict with states and plaintiffs that an argument of protection under the bill of rights cannot be used by a plaintiffs . Overall this case sets the precedent that the bill of rights applies only to federal government and not the states. Reply Comments above copied from original document Zara Khan Zara KhanJun 10, 2018 The Constitutional issue/question held before the Court in this case is if the Fifth Amendment denies the federal government and the states to seize private property for use by the public without paying the owner of the property? Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 9, 2018 The Bill of Rights does not apply to state and local government, only to Federal government. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userJun 7, 2018 This case is significance because it establishes the government's right to repress private property when necessary for public use. This case also establishes that Bill of Rights does not protect against state government. Reply Comments above copied from original document Deleted user Deleted userNov 27, 2017 Here's a quick and clear explanation of the main issue in the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YTF0QbCjg
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 26, 2017
    The landmark non-incorporation case in which Chief Justice John Marshall authors an opinion that states, “we are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 26, 2017
    John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 26, 2017
    Significance: The case cited that the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government and not the power of state governments. Since the 5th Amendment cannot be applied to the states, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 26, 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEQeoPTLuwc
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 10, 2017
    John Barron’s boating business was damaged because the city of Baltimore passed a bill that (unintentionally) diverted water from his wharf in the harbor. Barron sued the city for compensation/damages and won in trial court. However, the appellate ruled against him, thus bringing the case to the Supreme Court.

    Does the Bill of Rights, which limited the power of the federal government, also restrict states’ power? In a unanimous decision, the Court held that no it does not. The Court states that the Bill of Rights was limited to the federal government and did not extend to the states. This was a non-incorporation case – Bill of Rights did not apply. The Bill of Rights did not protect against state action, only federal action. The Takings Clause (5th Amendment) did not apply because the state exercised its power and not Congress. (See also: eminent domain)
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Shameka Thompson
    Shameka ThompsonSep 8, 2016
    Constitutional Question:

    Does the Fifth Amendment apply to local governments more specifically individual states?

    I’m not sure why this case was even brought before the Supreme Court considering its like POLS 100 that the Bill of Rights pertains to the federal government’s exertion of power over the individual rights of the people. I would think that most people would agree that this was a definite way to limit the powers of the federal government consequentially limiting the notion of “Big” government which most were/are afraid of. I had a duh moment when reading this case because it was a nice try seemingly by someone who must’ve missed that lecture freshman year of college.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 8, 2016
    Holding: The 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause does not apply to the states. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction and the case is dismissed.

    Reasoning: The constitution was established by the people of the United States for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Barron’s reasoning relies on the inhibitions put forth in Article 1, sec 10 of the constitution. In the previous section, the majority of the language there is very general (e.g., no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed). Section 10, on the other hand, has restrictions expressly applied to the states (no state shall enter into any treaties, etc.). Therefore, if the 5th Amendment was meant to be applied to the states, it would have been expressed in affirmative terms. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. Those amendments demanded for security against encroachments of the general government, not against those of local governments. As such, we are of the opinion that the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause is not applicable to the legislation of states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 6, 2016
    John Barron was co-owner of a wharf in the harbor of Baltimore.As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. Barron sued the state because they ruined his wharf by diverting streams and making water too shallow for his boats. He claimed that the city took his property without just compensation and was in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 7, 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YTF0QbCjg
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 6, 2016
    Barron v. Baltimore
    7 Peters 242; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)
    Facts:
    (1) John Barron was the owner of a boating business in Baltimore, Maryland.
    (2) The city of Baltimore passed a bill on the adjustment of water flow.
    (3) The bill caused the water in Barron’s wharf to become more shallow and essentially made his wharf unusable.
    (4) The bill was not created with the intention of damaging the water in Barron’s wharf.
    (5) Barron sued the city of Baltimore in hopes of getting compensation for the damages. (6) Barron won in trial court.
    (7) The city of Baltimore appealed the case and it was brought the the Supreme court.
    (8) The main argument of this case is eminent domain, which is the right of the government to claim private property when it they deem it necessary for public use.
    Issues:
    (1) Is the takings clause of the 5th amendment applicable to the City of Baltimore? No.
    Holding: The 5th amendment is not applicable to the City of Baltimore because it places a restraint on the power of the general government. The supreme court stated that the 5th amendment was only limited to the federal government.
    Disposition: Under Chief Justice John Marshall, this case was unanimously dismissed.
    Reasoning: According to article 1, sections 9 and 10 of the constitution, the states are given the same powers as the federal government with regard to the takings clause. However, there is no statement in the 5th amendment that says it applies to the states. Therefore, this amendment, and by extension, the bill of rights, do(es) not apply to the states and the Supreme court did not have the jurisdiction to come to a decision on this case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 19, 2016
    The court established that the states do not have to abide by the Bill of Rights
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    The effects of the courts ruling here can be seen right at the UIC campus as it was built on land taken via eminent domain as was the expressway next to it. Had the court ruled the other way the process of getting these things built may have been far more difficult.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    The 5th amendment does NOT apply to states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    This case helped in defining how federalism works in the Constitution and set the precedent that the Bill of Rights cannot be applied to the states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    Bill of Rights for people; Bill of Rights not for States
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    The main issue in this case was whether or not the takings clause of the 5th amendment was applicable to the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8nh0whPxY this link is a quick 2min summary on this case. This video also mentions how the decision of the Supreme Court was in a way reversed by the passage of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment ensured civil rights to all Americans.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 18, 2016
    1) Title: Barron v. Baltimore
    2) Facts of the case: John Barron was a business owner in Baltimore, Maryland. His boating business was damaged because city o Baltimore passed an adjustment of water flow bill that resulted (did not intend) in cutting off water to Barron’s business. Barron sued the city for compensation for damages and win in trial court, but Baltimore appealed and the case was brought to Supreme Court. This case brings the question of eminent domain – the right of the government to repossess private property when necessary for public use.
    3) Legal Questions Presented: Does the 5th Amendment apply to states? No
    4) Holding: City of Baltimore win the case in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court stated that 5th Amendment was limited to federal government.
    5) Opinion of the Court: Marshall ruled that 5th Amendment of the Constitution that specify compensation for government taking private property for public use applied only to federal government, not the state government. Marshall stated that the plaintiff in error stated that 5th Amendment guarantees compensation for compensation for taking public property for private use. Marshall’s opinion was that 5th Amendment even though it protected the individual rights; it limited power of State Government and National Government. Marshall used inhibitions in tenth section of the Article I of the U.S. Constitution to support the argument that Bill of Rights limits the National Government. Such for example the 3rd clause “ no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be past” that applies to Government of U.S.
    6) Separate Opinion: Is dangerous because restricts liberties. The 10 Amendments to Constitution were adopted to safeguard against abuse of power.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    7) Comments and Evaluation: This case is a landmark case in U.S. history because it helped in defining the concept of Federalism in U.S. by establishing a precedent that Bill of Rights does not apply to state governments. Even though the ruling on this case was used in other cases, in 20th century 14th Amendment have been used to apply most of the Bill of Right to the states laws
    May 18, 2016•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 9, 2015
    Class notes: Bill of Rights:

    Ammendment 1: CONGRESS shall make no law…

    so many states were able to make their own religion

    Barron v Baltimore – non-incorporation case – bill of rights do not apply

    as result of the public works improvements someone looses value in his property

    takings clause doesn’t apply because the STATE took his stuff.. who is not CONGRESS

    Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail Co v Chicago 1897 – due to the 14th amendment (due process ) – incorporates the Bill of Rights
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 8, 2015
    The pertinent issues in this case weren’t even discussed, as far as I can tell. The Court simply says that the takings clause doesn’t apply to the state governments.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 7, 2015
    Barron v. Baltimore
    32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)

    John Barron sued the Mayor of Baltimore because the city caused the shallowing of his profitable port (which prevented ships from docking). He won compensation in a trial court, but then an appellate court ruled against him.

    Does the 5th Amendment apply to the States? No.

    Dismissed unanimously; Chief Justice Marshall reasoned:

    In Article’s 1 Section 9 and 10 the states are explicitly given the same powers as the federal government in regards to the clause: “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed” but there is no application to the State in the 5th Amendment. Therefore, this Amendment and the all of the Bill of Rights do not automatically apply to the States and the issue is outside of the Court’s jurisdiction.
    Reply

  2. On the basis of violation of the 5th Amendment, Barron filed suit against the city of Baltimore that the government isn’t able to take private property without compensation. The decision that the Bill of Rights does not apply to states came from Justice John Marshall and only to the federal government. Now because of this, the states still could interpret the Bill of Rights into their own governments in their own way, making it overall their decision to finalize the law.

  3. Barron v Baltimore is related with the Incorporation Doctrine of the Bill of Rigths. Barron sued Baltimore for taking his property without paying. In this case the Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rigths restrict the power of the federal government. In other words, the Supeme Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. It opened the door to later applied the amendments to the states.

  4. Barron V Baltimore stressed the potency of the Bill of Rights as it pertains to state actions and limitations on the power of federal (and general) government in the U.S. This case lays out plainly that for all intents and purposes the BoR, consisting of both affirmative and negative rights, is a check on the federal government power and action they are able to reconcile against states. This does not apply to the individual nor does it apply to the state unless the state is in violation of the law of the land.

  5. This was a very rare moment where the judges asserted the Federal power over State power, stating that all of the protections in the Bill of Rights only apply to Federal governments and not the State governments. However, this also granted the states to create whatever laws they want for their own territory, which was also very problematic, given that in this time period there were people in the country who were not considered to be people. These laws granted the state governments to create dehumanizing laws about the status of people.

  6. Barron v Baltimore is a landmark case that demonstrated the importance of federalism limiting the federal government and explaining that the limitations that the 5th amendment conveyed, were only relevant for the national government (fed) but this did not include the states.

  7. The case of Barron v. Baltimore displayed the limitations on the jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has. It will not rule on a case that does not have any federal level relevance. Because the fifth amendment was not intended to include the state governments, the court stated that Barron was not owed compensation by Maryland.

  8. Had there had been the 14th Amendment at the time of the case, the result would be different! I agree with the decision though because the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the national government. Because the SCOTUS is on the federal level, they have no jurisdiction according to the 5th Amendment. The state cannot be applied to the 5th Amendment therefore dismissing his case as what had happened to Barron didn’t go against his 5th Amendment.

  9. In Barron v. Baltimore the Court reasoned that the Bill of Rights was created with only the federal government in mind and therefore it should not apply to state governments. If I read and understood the case correctly, I believe Chief Justice John Marshall mentioned that this is where each individual state’s constitution comes into play and says, “remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves.”

  10. While the plaintiff in this case felt that his Fifth Amendment was being infringed upon by the state, the SC made the statement that this does not apply to the states. This was the case that truly solidified that Incorporation Doctrine, which limits the national government, and not the states. I find that this is interesting because, initially, I thought that the Bill of Rights applies in total form to the states. When reading the case, I thought this was based in a more historical context (because it was 1833).

  11. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court found that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. Marshall wrote that “the provision of the Fifth Amendment…declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States,” and therefore did not apply to the states. A ruling like this allows a lot of space for states to completely ignore the Bill of Rights.

  12. I found the chart very informative and helpful! This case in Baltimore, as my classmate’s have pointed out, was used by the SCOTUS to establish that the 5th amendment is a limiting provision for the power of the states. So far we have seen different intentions surrounding the different institutions that comprise our country. The constitution is not only a document to provide the basis for our government but also a tool to ensure that the States are not overruled by one central government. However, thanks to judicial review, we see how the interpretation of core elements of the same Constitution can be used to tip the scales and balance of power and protection.

  13. In this case, the Court unanimously declared that they couldn’t incorporate the Fifth Amendment on the state level. It is very interesting to look at cases from different time periods to see the progression of incorporation. At this particular time, the Court was not willing to step in and make decisions on the state level. I think this case would have a very different outcome now due to the precedents of incorporation seen today.

  14. The unanimous court ruled that the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government not as applicable to the states. In the opinion, Justice Marshall stated that had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the power of the state governments, they would have expressed that intention. However, the Amendments contained no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. With that said, how does this play into how one interprets the Constitution, it seems that the Supreme Court often picks and chooses how they choose to interpret certain clauses or concepts.

  15. The unanimous decision by the court to rule that the 5th amendment takings clause did not extend to State or city governments caused a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that he was entitled to compensation for the depreciation in value for his wharf. Arguably, had this case been brought before a post-14th amendment court, the ruling may have played out in favor of the plaintiff.

  16. The court unanimously declared that the 5th Amendment did not apply to the dispute between the business owner and the city of Baltimore, so they could not provide remedy. John Barron was not protected by the 5th Amendment because it was not an act by the federal government that caused damages to his business, but rather the state so they do not have jurisdiction as well.
    In the end, John Barron was done dirty through the strict interpretation of the Constitution and the lack of specific protections at the state’s level.

  17. John Barron was a wharf owner in Baltimore, and he claimed that construction by the city had diverted water flow to the harbor. Sand accumulated in the harbor and deprived him of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover his financial losses. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Baltimore, stating that the limitations on government found in the Fifth Amendment were intended to limit the powers of the national government, not the state governments.

  18. Barron v. Baltimore is an interesting look into the change over time that occurred within the stance of the Supreme Court on incorporation. As is shown in this case, the Court decided to not incorporate the 5th amendment’s “Takings” clause onto state level. It’s apparent by the date of this case that the Incorporation Doctrine wasn’t actually founded just yet, but this conservative stance from the Court reflects a reluctance on the behalf of the federal judiciary to step into the state level. The case establishes the precedent that the Bill of Rights was created to protect from the supremacy of the federal government, but that the local governments had more room to establish their own set of rules and regulations.

  19. This case would definitely be judged differently in today’s time. With states not having to abide by the Bill of Rights, they essentially found a legal loophole to do as they please. Barron was owed compensation for city having destroyed his deep waters, which affected his profits. Again, another example of why the Bill of Rights needed to be nationalized.

    • During the time period this decision was handed down we see that the supreme court does not feel the need to compensate Barron for the seizing of his property. The Supreme court decided that due to the fifth amendment not applying to states they are not eligible to make a ruling and thus it is what the appellate court ruled. It is interesting to see how the incorporation doctrine did not apply to the states during this time period. You would assume that it is self evident that the rights established by the bill of rights would carry on to the states

  20. This may have been the case that introduced me to the fact that the Bill of Rights did not always apply to the states. I believe that it wasn’t until Gitlow v New York that the Court incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. In Barron v Baltimore, Barron most certainly would have won that case in today’s Court. The city significantly decreased the value of his property and prevented him from continuing to make a living from it. The takings clause in the 5th amendment should have protected him. The way the Court ruled in 1833 allowed for states to take advantage of their citizens when instead the Court should be protecting them.

  21. Jyah Vora8:40 PM Feb 17
    The significance of Barron v. Baltimore (1833) is that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights only limits the power of the federal government and not the state governments. In the context of African-American legal history, this would preserve the institution of slavery in slave states.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Jayleen Sandoval
    Jayleen Sandoval9:23 PM Feb 15
    Barron V Baltimore reiterated that the Bill of Rights and the First ten amendments were powers granted and applicable only to the federal government. By doing so, the court gave states powers to impede individuals, specifically African Americans, from receiving these protections.
    Reply
    Ranya Naser
    Ranya Naser8:58 AM Feb 9
    Barron vs Baltimore was a non-incorporation case because it established the power of the federal government given by the Bill of Rights. This is a case that would affect the lives of many, especially because these same powers were not guaranteed for the state. If the power was given to the states, Barron would have immediately been compensated for the damage. This case also essentially meant that the states had different powers and laws that would then be used to abuse minority groups.
    Reply
    Laaiba Mahmood
    Laaiba Mahmood10:52 PM Feb 8
    Although the facts of this case did not directly relate to enslavement or the African American quest for citizenship, the Court’s opinion that the first ten amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government had lasting repercussions. By upholding states’ rights, the Court implicitly provided protection for slavery.
    Reply
    Denver Hatcher
    Denver Hatcher6:11 PM Feb 8
    Barron v Baltimore enunciated that the first ten amendments and the Bill of Rights, just as the Framers intended, were a check on the Federal government and were not applicable to the states. The Framers were weary of Federal power diminishing individual liberties, and thus constructed it so. Unfortunately, Barron would be a reigning precedent for many decades which allowed states to severely impede upon the liberties of non-whites, specifically, Black people.
    Reply
    Leya Ismail
    Leya IsmailOct 12, 2020
    The constitutional question that this case addressed was: does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property’s owner?

    Ultimately the court found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government.
    Reply
    Yj Hwang
    Yj HwangFeb 25, 2020
    While introducing the unity of purpose and dual citizenship doctrines, it’s important to remember the civil rights cases, going forward, do not guarantee anything
    Reply
    Judith Joseph
    Judith JosephFeb 19, 2020
    Team 2:
    Barron v Baltimore was case that occurred in 1833. The facts of the case are that in Baltimore. Maryland they were building a stream which debris from the construction flowed all the way to Barron’s port where he had ships coming. The debris made it impossible for ships to get by as eventually the deepness of the water decreased. Since Barron couldn’t receive ships at his ports anymore he sued Baltimore for ruining his business and messing with his revenue. He sued on the groups of the 5th amendment in the constitution which says if the U.S. were to take or ruin your land for their own purposes you must be compensated. At first he was granted compensation but then it was appealed all the way to the Supreme court which ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, only at the federal level. This case helped establish what the role of federalism is in the U.S. government. Federalism is the combination of different levels of government. This decision was slightly overturned with the 14th amendment which gave states and individual citizens equal protection under the law.
    Reply
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob MattensonFeb 17, 2020
    Barron v. Baltimore was the first non-incorporation case, and cemented the legal doctrine of the Constitution applying only to the federal government.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    ” the Constitution applying only to the federal government.” No, not quite, change “constitution” to “Bill of Rights.”
    Feb 17, 2020•Edit•Delete
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob Mattenson
    Thank you, sorry for the mistype.
    Feb 17, 2020•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Joey Mavrin
    Joey MavrinFeb 10, 2020
    Barron v. Baltimore ultimately resulted in the non-incorporation doctrine, which views the Bill of Rights as relevant only at the federal level, not the state level. In delivering his opinion to the court, Justice Marshall stated the fifth amendment (including the entirety of the Bill of Rights) “is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
    Reply
    Jason Davis
    Jason DavisFeb 9, 2020
    This case is the Non-incorporation case which the Court decided that Bill of Rights did not apply to the states and only to the federal government.
    Reply
    Nadeen Elsayed
    Nadeen ElsayedFeb 9, 2020
    Non-incorporation was certainly useful to allow the states to have so much freedom in doing whatever they wanted.
    Reply
    Anthony Sikorski
    Anthony SikorskiFeb 9, 2020
    Barron v. Baltimore held that the 5th amendment did not apply to the states, a concept called non-incorporation. This gave slaves no recourse to appeal any state court rulings, which would most likely not go in their favor regardless (for a long time).
    Reply
    Rama Izar
    Rama IzarFeb 9, 2020
    John Barron sued the city for compensation damages. Even though he won $4,500 in the trial court, the appellate court ruled against him. This case then went to the Supreme Court because Barron had argued that he was deprived of his property and that under eminent domain, the government has a right to repossess private property. The City of Baltimore won and the Supreme Court finds that the Bill of Rights will be limited to just the federal government. This is a non-incorporation case in which the fifth amendment would not apply because the state ruined his business.
    Reply
    Sara Shatat
    Sara ShatatFeb 6, 2020
    Supreme Court power was interpreted to be limited to federal government, therefore their power does no reach state actions so in Barron v. Baltimore the resolution (the repaying of lost revenue) was struck down. While this was upheld for the most part moving forward, selective incorporation of the bill of rights has grown to include most of the first ten amendments.
    Reply
    Alfredo Navarro
    Alfredo NavarroFeb 6, 2020
    Barron V. Baltimore was an early case in American judicial history where the bill of rights was essentially found to be limited to the national government but not the states. Its important to notice how this would change in the follow decades where incorporation cases for the bill of rights and other amendments would become applicable to state governments and laws.
    Reply
    Drew Fowler
    Drew FowlerFeb 5, 2020
    The court states that the question presented in Barron v. Baltimore is “of great importance, but not of much difficulty.” The question in this case being whether the 5th amendment(and the rest of the Bill of Rights) applies to the state government as it does the federal government. The court states that the US Constitution is written by and for the citizens of the US and thus has no power over the legislation of the state governments. This ruling went on to establish the non-incorporation doctrine.
    Reply
    Drew Fowler
    Drew Fowler
    Team 1:
    Barron v. Baltimore
    7 Peters 242; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)

    Facts: Craig and Barron, the plaintiff’s, own a wharf in Baltimore which services ships that do trading in Baltimore, because the wharf is located in one of the deepest portions of the harbor. The City of Baltimore, using its corporate authority over the harbor, directed streams that would become violent with heavy rain into the harbor. These streams carried large masses of sand and earth into the harbor, making the portion of harbor where Craig and Barron’s wharf was, much shallower. This effectively hurt the business of Craig and Barron, the wharf becoming of little to no value. The plaintiffs claim that this is a violation of the 5th amendment of the constitution that stated that no private property shall be taken by the US government without just compensation. Barron was awarded 4500 dollars for damages at district court but this was overruled at the appellate court.

    Issue: Does the 5th amendment apply to the states?

    Decision: No

    Reasoning: The court states that the 5th amendment does not extend to the legislative power of the states, thus the court has no jurisdiction in this case. This ruling state the liberties that the Constitution guarantees the citizens of the US are only protections from the federal government and the US Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to protect citizens from the federal government.
    Feb 18, 2020•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Julio Hernandez
    Julio HernandezFeb 5, 2020
    TABLE 5: Barron v. Baltimore established the Incorporation Doctrine, which allows the Bill of Rights to be applied to the Federal Government only. The logistics of the case was regarding the infringement of Mr. Barrons 5th Amendment Rights, the SCOTUS ruled that the 5th amendment was only given to the Federal Government and “if the founding fathers wanted to give the states that right, they would have given it to them”.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    “established the Incorporation Doctrine” I disagree, would you consider non-incorporation instead
    Feb 5, 2020•Delete
    Julio Hernandez
    Julio Hernandez
    Yes!! its non-incorporation
    Feb 5, 2020•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Henry Jiang
    Henry JiangFeb 5, 2020
    Barron vs Baltimore was significant as the Court had established that the Constitution was created by “the people of the United States,” and thus, this only applied to the government that Constitution had created, not for individual states government. Further, this case had established the non-corporation doctrine.
    Reply
    Yj Hwang
    Yj HwangDec 7, 2019
    Without being informed, it would be shocking to hear it took this long for the bill of rights to be applied to the states. If the Constitution was truly the “law of the land” then one would imagine it being integrated far sooner until the 14th amendment.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 7, 2019
    The Bill of Rights was tricky as it did apply only to federal government and not the states which is the reason Barron couldn’t protect his right toward his damaged property. If the Bill of Rights was applied to states, then his right would be relevant.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 6, 2019
    Facts:
    The city of Baltimore, Maryland conducted a project that involved utilizing streams that ran into Baltimore Harbor. The project resulted in large amounts of sediment which was then carried by the streams into the Baltimore Harbor which then settled near a wharf owned by John Barron. The rise in sediment made it extremely difficult for ships to dock at the wharf, therefore, losing Barron money from profits as his business decreased. Barron sued Baltimore arguing that he was deprived his property without due process required by the Fifth Amendment. Barron received $4,500 in compensation but the decision was reversed by a Maryland appellate court.

    Issue:
    Does the fifth amendment apply to the states as it does the national government?

    Decision:
    No.

    Reasoning:
    The Bill of Rights, and in turn the Fifth Amendment, only apply to the federal government. Therefore, Barron is not entitled to compensation because this was the state not the federal government.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 6, 2019
    This is bizarre, so Chief Justice Marshal meant to say that the bill of rights does not protect U.S citizens from state action, only federal. So does he mean to say that provided a state has nothing similar in its constitution, a state can establish a religion or infringe on freedom of speech provided that they are not laws made by congress?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 6, 2019
    Facts: John Barron was a business owner in Baltimore, Maryland. His boating business was damaged because the city of Baltimore passed as adjustment of water flow bill that resulted (did not intend) in cutting off water in Barron’s business (which prevented ships from docking). Barron sued the city for compensation for damages. He won compensation in a trial court, but then an appellate court ruled against him; the case was brought to SCOTUS. This case brings the question of eminent domain – the right of the government to repossess private property when necessary for public use.
    Question: Does the Bill of Rights, which limited the power of the national government also serve to similarly restrict powers of the states? No. Unanimous.
    Holding: City of Baltimore won the case in the Supreme Court. SCOTUS states that the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment) was limited to federal government, and not to the states.
    -Non-incorporation case – Bill of Rights do not apply. Takings clause does not apply because the state took his stuff, not Congress.
    Reply
    Mustafa Wahdan
    Mustafa WahdanFeb 6, 2019
    Barron v. Baltimore was a very important case. This case set the precedent that the Bill of Rights and specifically the Fifth amendment only protects citizens from the federal government. Therefore Barrons attempt at receiving damages from the state of Maryland for using his property with his due process, was not justified because the fifth amendment only protected him from the federal government not his own state. This allowed for states to make their own laws regarding such matters that related to their citizens
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 6, 2019
    Barron V Baltimore had a significant impact on how a state/individual views the bill of rights. The S.C. prohibited that Barron be granted restitution from the state government while using the 5th amendment as his defense. The bill of rights applies to a federal question , not a state one. The bill of rights was set up by the people to check the overwhelming power of the federal government in which it established. States have their own laws and constitution, thereby the 5th cannot be a suitable defense for Barron to be granted his compensation, it is up to the individual state to oversee this matter, as it is a state matter, where the state has its own constitution, not a federal one. Due to this notion, the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the case.
    Barron 🙁
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 6, 2019
    This case had a big influence on American history. Court refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the state government and the federal government. As for the Fourteens Amendment provides legal basis for citizens.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 14, 2017
    This article is somewhat confusing, it does not seem like it is really about Barron at all but rather about the courts statutory interpretation of the constitution and how this can often be a mediator between state and federal legislation. The holding is that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause and that the case is dismissed and this is because the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution it is declare that private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation and this is a limitation of the power of the government and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. Was this the case that has significantly drawn the line between state and federal limitations? Or was it like Brown v Board of Education, and it represents the culmination of many minor infractions taken from the appellate court and used as fuel to put out the ambiguity inherent in the fifth amendment?
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    please ask me in class to explain. In short, since the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” the Court for decades refused to interpret the Bill of Rights to be restrictions on States, only on Congress. For example, Congress can make no law establishing religion; but, States CAN make laws establishing religion. The process whereby the Court has gradually applied the Bill of Rights to States is called the incorporation doctrine.
    Feb 14, 2017 (edited Feb 14, 2017)•Edit•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 13, 2017
    The case was a big victory for the states’ rights advocates. The case provided a doctrine that provisions of Bill of Rights apply only to federal government not to the states. The case created a president that lead to many states passing pro-slavery laws. The decision of Barron v. Baltimore was reaffirmed in Permoli v. New Orleans (1845), Mattox v. U.S. (1894), and in Prudential Insurance Company v. Chreek (1922). Even though in 20th century most of the provision of Bill of Rights apply to the states now, Barron v. Baltimore was never overturned. This case is important for understanding shaping American federalism and African- American legal history. In my opinion this case provided a president to limit African-Americans from wining segregation cases based on provisions of Bill of Rights.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 13, 2017
    Barron v. Baltimore is the non-incorporation case that concluded that the Bill of Rights could not be applied to the states. However, the Bill of Rights would then become incorporated through the 14th amendment. Gitlow v. New York (1925). The Fourteenth Amendment provided a legal basis to which we are afforded as citizens (or non-citizens), and what we are entitled as citizens of a nation.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 13, 2017
    It is quite difficult to understand the power struggle between federal and state. I think that the federal handles the protection for all persons against democracy. However, the federal doesn’t support the democracy of ALL persons who are native to America. I say native because citizen is a tricky word that the federal feels that it is natural for to grant to people and not grant.I think the government between federal and state since, the continent has been conquered, has heavily economic progression above everything else. As a result, states have undemocratically been given their own discretion to create exclusive citizenship. I don’t know if the framers expected the state and federal to have a power struggle to providing citizenship. And I wonder were the Framers only thinking of a certain group of people to experience democracy while every other other group gets subjugated?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 15, 2016
    I think that the argument that the fifth amendment only applies when the federal gov’t infringes on personal property is a slippery slope. I can definitely see how this can be later applied to how one may argue that individual states are responsible for deciding matters within their own states regarding property and how they could make the argument that federal legislation or intervention directly undermines the Constitution, while state or local legislation does not.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 15, 2016
    Notwithstanding Barron v. Baltimore, the Court has utilized the doctrine of selective incorporation to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. One of the first cases which reversed the course of Barron was Gitlow v. New York which incorporated the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech. After Gitlow, the Court incorporated other rights one by one (I.E., selective incorporation) culminating in the most recent incorporation case of McDonald v. Chicago, which was decided in 2010 and involved the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 15, 2016
    I feel like this the third or fourth time we see this, where the court interperts something as applicable just for the federal government and not the states. It is like the go to line!
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 15, 2016
    The significance of Barron v. Baltimore is that the Court refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the state deeming the first ten amendments only applicable to the Federal Government. This is known as the non-incorporation doctrine.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Ammar Sheikah
    4:26 PM Jan 26
    The Bill of Rights was said to not apply to the states in Barron v Baltimore. We refer to this as the “non-incorporation case.”
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Ruben Bautista
    8:21 PM Jan 26
    Selective Incorporation: From 1868 to today, The Supreme Court of the United States has made certain parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. But the Bill Of Rights has never applied in totality to states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Jared Gutkin
    8:45 PM Jan 26
    when the bill of rights was created it was aimed to only apply to the federal government. under the incorporation doctrine, the bill of rights applies to both state and local governments.
    jared gutkin
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Brenda Olvera
    10:42 PM Jan 26
    The Selective Incorporation doctrine states that the Bill of Rights applies to the local state governments as well as the federal government. We had cases like in Barron v. Baltimore (1883) where the court ruled that the 5th amendment only applied to the federal government. However, later on we see the court bring up selective incorporation where the Bill of Rights where both levels of government are held to the same standards
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Christen Lee
    1:26 PM Feb 13
    The Incorporation doctrine is:
    By way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the bill of rights can be made to apply to the states.
    An important thing to note:
    An ENTIRE amendment may not necessarily be incorporated, but specific clauses can be. For example the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment was incorporated in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York, however the Petition Clause of the same Amendment was not incorporated until 1963 with Edwards v. South Carolina.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Nida Khalid
    9:55 PM Feb 16
    this allowed the bill of rights to be applied to the states as well
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesFeb 18, 2015
    Jauwan Hall
    10:07 PM Feb 16
    Incorporation Doctrine OR Nationalization of Bill of Rights: These phrases can be used interchangeably to describe the process by which specific clauses of amendments, or entire amendments of the Constitution have become applicable to individual STATE governments and local municipalities, (COUNTIES and CITIES) under jurisdiction of the state. Amendments have become incorporated via the 14th Amendments
    The most recent incorporation case was McDonald v Chicago. In which the Supreme Court found that Chicago’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.
    In my opinion, the incorporation doctrine hinders the purpose of dual federalism. Competition between states would exist if the Bill of Rights wasn’t enforced on all states in the union. Competition is supposed to drive innovation and makes for a better democracy.
    Read more on Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    Mr. Hall! Wikipedia! ? How about directing students to my chapter 2 in Civil Liberties and the Constitution (345 text)?
    Feb 18, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Jacob Nelson
    Jacob NelsonFeb 17, 2015
    BARRON v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
    Supreme Court of the United States, 1833
    32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243

    FACTS The appellant, John Barron sued the appellee, City of Baltimore for damages resulting from the City altering the wharf that he owned by redirecting the flow of streams into the harbor in which said wharf existed. The streams carried sand into the wharf and made it inaccessible to ships. Barron was awarded $4,500 in damages in county court. Baltimore appealed this decision and was successful in getting it overturned. Barron appealed this decision and the U.S. Supreme court took up the case. The basis of Barron’s appeal was that the Fifth Amendment protected him from the State government taking his land without compensation.

    ISSUE Does the U.S. Constitution protect citizens from the State government in addition to the Federal government?

    DECISION The Supreme Court ruled that they have no jurisdiction of the cause and dismissed the case. They ruled that that the U.S. Constitution only protected citizens from harm of the Federal government only, unless wording explicitly named that it applies to states. Therefore citizens could not be protected by the Constitution from their local or State governments.

    REASONING The reasoning behind the decision that they had no jurisdiction was that the amendment “contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to State governments.” The Courts reasoning was that had the framers of the Constitution intended the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from local governments, they would have explicitly stated so. The Court reasoned that because the framers of the Constitution had at times named rules which explicitly applied to certain areas of the government, e.g. Congress, or that applied explicitly to the States, that any words that spoke in general terms were to be assumed to apply to only the Federal government. In short, if they meant for the laws to apply to the States, they would have explicitly said
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 16, 2015
    like everyone mentioned below, its the big incorporation case and it stated that the bill of rights only applied to federal govt. not states
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    non incorporation *
    Feb 16, 2015•Delete
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    correction, the big NON-incorporation case
    Feb 16, 2015•Edit•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 16, 2015
    While on the surface this case does not explicate African American history, it had a great impact. It stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state governments. This is important because even if the Bill of Rights guarantee African Americans freedoms, the states are still free to create laws as they please.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 16, 2015
    I feel bad for Baron.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userFeb 13, 2015
    “The first ten amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them”- Chief Justice John Marshal

    Its interesting that Marshall had no idea that his creation (Judicial Review) would eventually be applied to states in addition to the national government.

    Christen Lee
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    nanaIC
    nanaICJan 26, 2015
    this is the famous non-incorporation case everyone always speaks about. In it, it was unanimously decided that the bill of rights applied to only the federal government and not the states.

    Jared Gutkin
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 26, 2015
    Ruben Bautista
    Barron v. Baltimore
    NON-INCORPORATION CASE**
    In an unanimous court decision, Marshall held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not the states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 26, 2015
    Ammar Sheikah
    This is the famous “non-incorporation case” for the Bill of Rights. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall claimed that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states, therefore Barron was essentially S.O.L.
    Following this case we see selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, but never total incorporation.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 29, 2014
    I understand the belief that the Bill of Rights only limits the federal government, but yet even after the 14th amendment was passed it took so damn long for the Bill of Rights to save us from the power of the state government.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    Ah sorry, am using knowledge from other areas besides the case, I meant on how Barron got screwed since while Baltimore is an authority of the state he is not an authority of the federal government, thus no luck for him. And the case is dismissed.
    Jan 29, 2014•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 27, 2014
    In Barron v. Baltimore, the owner of a wharf in Baltimore harbor sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages incurred due to soil buildup from street construction that was running off into the harbor and making the waters too shallow for boats. Justice Marshall established the “non-incorporation” doctrine in deciding that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government only and not the state governments.
    In contrast, the incorporation doctrine seeks to make the Bill of Rights binding on the states through the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
    Realistically, the Court generally follows the selective incorporation doctrine, in which it examines each case on its merits to decide whether the Bill of Rights applies to the states.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 26, 2014
    1. John Marshall in Barron v Baltimore 1833
    Non-incorporation:
    a. Marshall adopts the view that the founding fathers never intended for the Bill of rights to be applied to the states or the local government–the bill of rights should be understood as restraining the power to the national government and not that of the states
    2. Selective incorporation
    a. Only apply some of the bill of rights
    b. states pick certain right to apply to the states-The most recent is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms (Chicago v. McDonalds)
    3. Total incorporation
    a. We don’t have total incorporation not all of the bill of rights are incorporated by states
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJan 20, 2014
    John Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore, 1833 Chief justice Marshall adopts the view that the founding fathers never intended for the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states or their local government, hence the bill of rights should be understood as the restraining the power of the national government and not that of the states. This is a non-incorporation case.

  22. It was so beautiful the flowers names that beautify the auditorium with great speakers passing on knowledge, I miss my dear teachers that chinese virus took away….

  23. Zain HussainSep 20, 2020
    The case Barron vs. Baltimore was very important because it helped established the concept of federalism which is the separation of state and federal powers.
    Reply
    Michelle Rodriguez
    Michelle RodriguezSep 19, 2020
    In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, John Barron who was a wharf owner sued the city of Baltimore. He believed the city had negatively affected his business and therefore profit because of some construction which had changed the waterflow of the area. In the beginning, the court had given him some compensation but this was later shut down by the appellate court. Therefore, this case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Here, the supreme court ruled that the taking clause of the fifth amendment was not applicable to state government but solely as a power check on the federal government. Thus, the supreme court had no jurisdiction and Barron did not receive any compensation.
    Reply
    Anshu Nidamanuri
    Anshu NidamanuriSep 18, 2020
    This case refers to federalism, and how the bill of rights only applies to the federal government not the state governments.
    Reply
    Nay Tjatur
    Nay TjaturSep 18, 2020
    This case established the concept of federalism, and decided that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to state governments.
    Reply
    Haneen Abdelhafez
    Haneen AbdelhafezSep 16, 2020
    In Barron v. Baltimore, the Court asserted that the Constitution was created “by the people of the United States” to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created – the federal government – and “not for the government of the individual states.”
    Reply
    Elizabeth Peralta
    Elizabeth PeraltaSep 14, 2020
    in this case, Justice Marshall cited the Bill of Rights and said that they were there to check the federal government — so therefore the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case because the 5th amendment was not applicable to the states
    Reply
    Emma Whaley
    Emma WhaleySep 13, 2020
    In this case, the question of whether or not the fifth amendment right of private property not being taken for public use without just compensation, is applicable to the states as well as the federal government or just the federal government. John Barron, a wharf owner, brought this case against the city of Baltimore after their actions caused his waters to become too shallow to provide adequate income. While this plaintiff/case might not be the most important, the decision by the Supreme Court set an important precedent of non-incorporation, meaning the 5th amendment and the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the federal government and does not limit the power of the state governments. Therefore, the court determined they had no jurisdiction and the case was dismissed.
    Reply
    Bukola Abdulwahab-Omotose
    Bukola Abdulwahab-OmotoseSep 13, 2020
    John Barron sued the city for damages stating that the city’s construction led to sand accumulations that deprived him of deep waters and hence led to his loss of profit. In this case, the SCOTUS ruled against John Barron ruling that the Bill of Rights was restricted only to the powers of the federal government and not the state government. The court argued that it had no jurisdiction based on this and that there was nowhere in the constitution that states the bill of rights limited the actions of state governments.
    Reply
    Osikenoya Usman-Aliu
    Osikenoya Usman-AliuSep 13, 2020
    John Barron tried to sue the mayor of Baltimore for damages, and he lost. The Supreme Court held in 1833 that the Bill of Rights restrained only the national government, not the states and the cities. It was later overturned by Gitlow v. New York. It came to this decision through the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone.
    Reply
    Drew Fowler
    Drew FowlerSep 13, 2020
    This case limited the protections of the Bill of Rights, specifically the first 8 amendments, to only protect citizens from the national goverment and not the states. It wouldn’t be until the 14th amendments due process clause was gradually extended to include the first 8 amendments that citizens would be granted these protections from both the state and national government.
    Reply
    Sara Shatat
    Sara ShatatSep 13, 2020
    It is interesting reading cases regarding the powers and limitations of the US government vs the state governments. Baron vs Baltimore makes me think of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law we discussed last spring since they reasoned the fifth amendment was a check on the power of the national government and not the state. The spirit of the law here is to protect the people from those in power overreaching and causing injustice. But since it was the state government, Baron was not compensated for his loss. The letter of the law prevented citizens from being protected from their state governments (which I’m sure will be a reccurring theme).
    Reply
    Matt Springer
    Matt SpringerSep 13, 2020
    Wharf owner John Barron claimed that construction by the city of Baltimore had diverted water flow in the harbor area. He argued that sand build-up in the harbor deprived Barron of deep waters, which reduced his profits. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. The trial court awarded him $4,500 in damages, which the state appellate court struck down. The constitutional question of this case is does the Fifth deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property’s owner? The outcome was that the states are not bound by the bill of rights.
    Reply
    Liliana Diaz
    Liliana DiazSep 13, 2020
    Barron v. Baltimore limited the 5th amendment/Bill of Rights as applicable only to the federal government and not the states.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 17, 2019
    The case of Barron V. Baltimore was important because it emphasized that the Bill of Rights was intended to restrict federal government powers, not state government power.
    Reply
    Marissa Scavelli
    Marissa ScavelliSep 17, 2019
    In Barron v. Baltimore, the supreme court held that the 5th Amendment was limited to federal government. The case was dismissed by the supreme court since the issue was considered outside of the courts jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this is still a landmark case because it determined that the Bill of Rights restricts state powers; the bill of rights protects individual rights but still limits the powers of the states.
    Reply
    Ashanti Simpkins
    Ashanti SimpkinsSep 17, 2019
    This case is substantial because of the precedent it set not only regarding the 5th amendment being applicable to the situation describes in the case but also it set the record straight on whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to States which it does not. Considering that the Bill of Rights is only applicable to the federal government and not states, it is interesting how ecen today, i think, we all kind of regard the Bill of Rights as everybody’s standard rather than just federal standards to follow and uphold
    Reply
    Monalisa Mensah
    Monalisa MensahSep 16, 2019
    In Barron v Baltimore, the court ruled that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the federal government but not individual states.
    Reply
    Ayesha Mohammed
    Ayesha MohammedSep 16, 2019
    The case argued whether the 5th Amendment, or more specifically, whether private property can be taken for public use with just compensation. In a unanimous decision under Chief Justice Marshall, the case was dismissed. The doctrine of non-incorporation was established, stating that if the founding fathers intended to limit the powers of the state, they would have included it in the Constitution.
    Reply
    Jessica Amyette
    Jessica AmyetteSep 16, 2019
    This case is significant in that it set the precedent that states were not held to abide by the Constitution. Barren did not have the right to compensation from the city of Baltimore because the city is not bound to the fifth amendment.
    Reply
    Ines Josefina Castaneda
    Ines Josefina CastanedaSep 16, 2019
    The most important part of this case was that the Bill of Rights did not limit the state but another take away was that the supreme court did mention they did not have jurisdiction to hear this case because it was a city matter not a state matter.
    Reply
    Anthony Sikorski
    Anthony SikorskiSep 16, 2019
    Even after the United States enacted the 14th Amendment in 1868, effectively overturning the ruling in Barron, the Supreme Court still ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to states, only the federal government, specifically in regards to the 1st and 2nd amendment’s.
    Reply
    Daniel Garcia
    Daniel GarciaSep 16, 2019
    Barron v. Baltimore is a landmark case because it sets the precedent of Non-Incorporation. This means that, while Congress must abide by the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments, the states are not obliged to adhere strictly to the Bill of Rights. As a result, it has taken decades for the Amendments to the Constitution to be Incorporated.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 16, 2019
    Barron V. Baltimore was an important case due to the Supreme Court clarifying that the Bill of Rights limits the powers of only the Federal government, not state governments.
    Reply
    Henry Jiang
    Henry JiangSep 16, 2019
    Barron vs Baltimore was an very important case as this established the principle that the rights founded in the Bill of Rights does not the limit the states’ powers, which was something that eventually reversed until few decades later where the Court incorporated the Bill of Rights in the 14th amendment.
    Reply
    Sylvia Waz
    Sylvia WazSep 16, 2019
    This case is important because it set the stage for selective incorporation. The Court would have to rule case by case to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It questions what states can and cannot do under the first ten amendments. Courts can limit what states can do through the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. The Court can also apply due process from the Constitution to the Bill of Rights so they can be applicably to the states.
    Reply
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob MattensonSep 16, 2019
    What’s critical about the outcome of this case, the ruling that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal Congress and that Congress alone, is that it set the stage for all the jurisdictional legal battles throughout American legal history.
    Reply
    Andrew Tuider
    Andrew TuiderSep 16, 2019
    The unanimous decision by the court ruling that the 5th Amendment did not apply tot he states established that the whole Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to the states. This precedent was in place until the 14th Amendment, but even today there are some parts of the consitution that are selectevly incorporated.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 16, 2019
    This case essentially held that the 5th Amendment did not apply to the States. In effect, this led to the Bill of Rights as a whole not being applicable to any of the States.

    All of this really demonstrates the importance of the 14th Amendment, which would not come until more than 30 years later.
    Reply
    Julio Hernandez
    Julio HernandezSep 16, 2019
    This case was significant as it established the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the State and Federal Government. This relationship is that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the Federal Government and not the individual states.
    Reply
    Crystal Lopez
    Crystal LopezSep 16, 2019
    This case demonstrated that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not to the states. On the readings in the book for the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment suggested that the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the states. Once the 14th amendment was passed it provided citizens with better protections for their privileges which are stated in the first 8 amendment. The federal government then stated that if anything in the constitution was directed for the state it will mention it so it created the idea of two different citizenship. People were had a national citizenship and a state citizenship.
    Reply
    Alfredo Navarro
    Alfredo NavarroSep 16, 2019
    The case was essential as it establishes the relationship between how the bill of rights (specifically the 5th amendment) applies to the federal government but no the actual states.
    Reply
    Philip Garza
    Philip GarzaSep 16, 2019
    This case was significant because it discusses the basis of the Bill of Rights and how it is applied to the federal government and not the state government.
    Reply
    Leya Ismail
    Leya IsmailSep 15, 2019
    Barron VS Baltimore was a landmark case the ruling was that the Bill of rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states. However, despite the ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights to apply to their own governments and viewed them as “common law”. The passing of the 14th amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since then, which bans states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, as also incorporating most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 15, 2019
    This case is significant because the Court stated that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and NOT state governments — thus making it applicable to state action. This established the idea of “dual citizenship” — Two separated and distinct set of rights–one deriving from national and the other from State citizenship. This is further explored in the Slaughterhouse cases. In modern times, this has kind of been overturned due to the Court using the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to apply the bill of rights toward states.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 10, 2015
    Its interesting to see how the court reverses itself. After Barron, in which they claimed they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case because the Constitution did not apply to states the fourteenth amendment was implemented and this reversed the ruling of Barron V Baltimore. This is because the fourteenth amendment states equal protection under the law.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 10, 2015
    I am curious if this would qualify as a eminent domain case? For what I remember of eminent domain it deals with the right of a government expropriate private property for public use. But it wasn’t really the wharf but rather the water that the government altered so I am not sure how it might apply.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted user
    ignore this I answered my own question…
    Sep 10, 2015•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 10, 2015
    The non-incorporation doctrine is the most important part of this case, and the Bill of Right’s significance to the federal government rather than the states. I also think it is interesting that Thomas mentioned that “the Court did not simply reverse itself after its ruling in Barron, but used an additional legal mechanism.” This highlights, as I’m sure other cases to come will, the Court’s tendency not to delegitimize itself through direct reversals. HOWEVER, we do see time and time again that the Court will have a tendency to contradict itself in means other than reversals……
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 9, 2015
    As the 14th Amendment would later serve as the basis to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, I think that this shows how Barron was essentially nullified or circumvented through using the 14th Amendment. The Court did not simply reverse itself after its ruling in Barron, but used an additional legal mechanism.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 9, 2015
    This case’s significance is the SCOTUS ruling which constricts the Bill of Right’s power to only the federal government. Chief justice Marshall saw this case as simple and obvious. The ruling was 9-0. Although I understand that the Bill of Rights does not apply to state governments, I don’t agree with that.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 9, 2015
    Post incorporation case. Bill of Rights applies to federal government = Non-incorporation doctrine. 5th amendment does not apply to states was upheld in case.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    not the first post incorporation case, the rest is fine
    Sep 10, 2015•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 9, 2015
    The significance of this case is the “non-incorporation doctrine”. Essentially, Justice Marshall decided that SCOTUS does not have the power (or the jurisdiction) to enforce limitations upon individual states. The bill of rights do not apply to individual states, they apply only to the federal government. It is believed, in this opinion, that the bill of rights were not intended to restrain individual state constitutions; they were intended to limit the powers of only the federal government.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 7, 2015
    In this case Chief Justice Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion of the court and claimed that the Court had no jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the case.

    It was declared that the provision of the 5th amendment of the Constitution that declares that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is a limitation that is applicable solely in the case of the U.S. federal government, NOT state government.

    – Joe Anderson
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Juju Oluwole
    Juju OluwoleSep 10, 2014
    At this time states didn’t need regulation as long as what they did didn’t transgress against the federal government. Im surprised it actually took so long before this was overturned.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    zeinat hindi
    zeinat hindiSep 10, 2014
    I. Barron v. Baltimore
    II. Facts
    Awarded $4500 for loss of income due to the loss of his property
    Appellate court revised it
    III. Legal question
    Does the 5th amendment apply to states? (taking clause…..just compensation for the taking of private property?)
    IV. Holding
    SCOTUS RULED 9-0
    V. Opinion
    Established non- corporation doctrine. Bill of Rights does not apply to states. Justice Marshall says BOR intended to apply to the federal government.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jauwan Hall
    Jauwan HallSep 10, 2014
    Even though I don’t agree with it personally, the argument against the 5th Amendment applying to the states makes sense. I believe the Framers of the Constitution only wanted a federal government as a means of defense from foreign nations and to regulate the federal economy. I believe the goal of the Bill of Rights was to limit the reach of the federal government in all things not related to the economy and foreign affairs. Thereby allowing each state government to do what they felt was needed for the constituency of that state.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jauwan Hall
    Jauwan HallSep 10, 2014

    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin LylesSep 10, 2014
    “incorporation doctrine” vs. “Non-incorporation doctrine” vs “selective-incorporation doctrine”
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 10, 2014
    This case is significant in that it affirmed the Supreme Court’s view that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. However, since then the Court has overturned this decision by interpreting the 14th Amendment in such a way that would apply the Bill of Rights to the states (Incorporation Doctrine). L. Trujillo
    Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php