> > Margaret wrote:
> > > ...but seen in the context of their time, the Founders in general
> > > were quite radical.
> >
> > So you think that the participants in Shay's Rebellion were just a bunch
> > of ruffians. And seen in the context of their times they also were precisely
> > what Dr. Johnson called them, a bunch of slavedrivers.
> > And if the Bill of Rights was so radical
> > Carrol
>
> actually, in the context of their time, the framers (who, specifially, do
> people mean when they refer to Founders?) of the constitution were not
> radical...and one doesn't need to rely on the likes of Herbert Aptheker,
> Staughton Lynd, or Michael Parenti to arrive at this conclusion...
Michael's summary throughout this post reflects my POV as well. I have only one little nit to pick, which actually strengthens the whole of his argument.
He concludes thus:
> a bill of rights (often violated in practice) establishing substantive
> & procedural limits upon the national gov't was added as a concession
> to secure ratification...bill of rights did not apply to states until
> US Supreme Court initiated process of 'selective incorporation' in
> *Gitlow v NY* (1925)...
Actually, there was an earlier case in the history of the incorporation doctrine, *Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. V. Chicago* (1897), which construed a limit on the poower to take private property for public use without just compensation. Thus, it was in the interests of capital that the incorporation doctrine was first expressed.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"