Understanding The Constitutional Basis Of Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation is a constitutional law principle that ensures that selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to each state through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The doctrine describes the ability of the federal government to prevent states from enacting laws that violate the basic constitutional rights of American citizens. The selective part comes from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court incorporates these rights on a case-by-case basis.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$229.76 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

The US Supreme Court's case-by-case basis

The Supreme Court's approach to selective incorporation has evolved through several significant cases. One notable case is Gitlow v. New York (1925), where the Court ruled that states must protect freedom of speech, marking the first time the Court extended First Amendment protections to the state level. In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court strengthened protections for religious speech, ruling that state statutes could not restrict religious expression.

Another important case is Palko v. Connecticut (1937), where the Court formally adopted the selective incorporation doctrine, rejecting total incorporation. This case established a definition and guidelines for applying selective incorporation, demonstrating the Court's preference for a case-by-case approach.

Other cases have further shaped the doctrine of selective incorporation. For example, in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and federal court cases. This ruling was later extended by the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated certain parts of the Bill of Rights to the states through its Due Process Clause.

Through these cases, the US Supreme Court has established a body of jurisprudence on selective incorporation, ensuring that the Bill of Rights protections are applied in a way that respects states' rights while also safeguarding citizens' constitutional freedoms.

The 14th Amendment's due process clause

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to safeguard individual rights from state interference. It serves as a crucial mechanism for holding states accountable and preventing them from infringing on the fundamental rights of their citizens. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in various ways, including the protection of procedural due process, substantive due process, and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.

Procedural due process, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, ensures that government actors must follow specific procedures before depriving an individual of their protected interests in life, liberty, or property. This means that individuals have a right to fair and just legal processes, such as notice, a hearing, and an impartial decision-maker, before the state can take away these fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has elaborated on this concept in cases like Goldberg v. Kelly, where welfare benefits were recognised as "property" deserving of due process protections.

Additionally, the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states. While the Bill of Rights initially restricted only the federal government, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted to impose many of these limitations on state governments as well. This "incorporation" ensures that states must abide by the same protections as the federal government, safeguarding citizens' rights across the nation. However, it is important to note that not all rights have been incorporated, and the Supreme Court has debated the extent of incorporation, with some justices advocating for total incorporation while others support selective incorporation of specific rights.

In conclusion, the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights of individuals from state encroachment. Through procedural and substantive due process protections, as well as the "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights, this clause ensures that states respect and uphold the fundamental liberties of their citizens. The Supreme Court's interpretations and applications of this clause continue to shape the legal landscape, defining the balance between state powers and individual freedoms.

The Bill of Rights' applicability to states

Selective incorporation is a constitutional law principle that ensures the Bill of Rights' selected provisions apply to each state through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights, another name for the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, establishes fundamental rights. The "selective" part of the term refers to the US Supreme Court's case-by-case approach to deciding which portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. This is in contrast to the incorporation doctrine, which refers to the general concept that states cannot deny citizens the protections mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was initially only applicable to the federal government, as the original draft of the Constitution did not guarantee that the government would not infringe on citizens' rights. In 1833, the Supreme Court specifically held that the Bill of Rights protections did not extend to state governments. However, this changed with the 1937 case of Palko v. Connecticut, where the Supreme Court adopted the selective incorporation doctrine, rejecting total incorporation and establishing guidelines for its application.

The Fifth Amendment ensures Bill of Rights protections at the federal level, while the 14th Amendment defends these rights at the state level. The 14th Amendment's due process clause has been a source of contention among Supreme Court justices, with some advocating for total incorporation of the Bill of Rights, while others support selective incorporation of only certain portions. The Supreme Court has incorporated certain parts of certain amendments under the selective incorporation doctrine, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.

Examples of cases where selective incorporation has been applied include Gitlow v. New York (1925), where the Supreme Court ruled that states must protect freedom of speech, and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), which strengthened protections on religious speech by ruling that a state statute could not restrict it. Other cases have addressed specific rights, such as the right to indictment by a grand jury, double jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy and public trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$245.32 $359

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

The incorporation doctrine's general concept

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine that ensures that the Bill of Rights is applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, guarantees many fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and worship.

The doctrine of incorporation refers to the general concept that states cannot deny citizens the protections mentioned in the Bill of Rights. This doctrine shapes constitutional rights by ensuring that these rights are protected in every state. The Supreme Court noted that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit only the federal government, and in 1833, the Court specifically held that these protections did not apply to state governments. However, through the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court has incorporated certain parts of certain amendments to ensure that states also respect citizens' rights.

The incorporation doctrine is not a law but a doctrine that has been established and confirmed by the United States Supreme Court through rulings on court cases dealing with rights violations. The Supreme Court adopted the selective incorporation doctrine in the 1937 case of Palko v. Connecticut, which rejected total incorporation and established a selective incorporation definition and guidelines for applying it. This case-by-case approach to deciding which portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states is known as selective incorporation.

Some examples of the Supreme Court's rulings on selective incorporation include Gitlow v. New York (1925), where the Court ruled that states must protect freedom of speech, and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), where the Court ruled that a state statute could not restrict religious speech. Other cases have dealt with the right to a speedy trial, the right to a public trial, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to confront hostile witnesses, among others.

The Fifth Amendment's role in federal protection

Selective incorporation is a constitutional law principle that ensures that selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to each state through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, establishes fundamental rights. The 5th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, plays a crucial role in ensuring that these rights are protected at the federal level.

The 5th Amendment ensures that the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights are upheld at the federal level. This means that citizens are afforded these protections regardless of the state they reside in. The 5th Amendment also includes the right to protection against self-incrimination, which has been reaffirmed through the "Miranda warning". This right ensures that individuals cannot be forced to provide evidence that may incriminate them during criminal proceedings.

The 5th Amendment's role in federal protection is significant as it provides a safeguard against the federal government infringing on citizens' rights. This is particularly important given that when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, its protections only applied to the federal government and not to state governments. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, extended equal protection and due process rights to all persons in the United States, and the Supreme Court used selective incorporation to protect citizens from state infringements on Constitutional rights.

The 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination has been further strengthened through case law. For example, in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment included protection against cruel and unusual punishments. Additionally, in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), the Court held that the 5th Amendment provided protection against the taking of property without due compensation.

In conclusion, the 5th Amendment plays a vital role in ensuring that the protections of the Bill of Rights are upheld at the federal level and that citizens are afforded these rights uniformly across all states. Through selective incorporation, the 5th Amendment helps to safeguard against infringements on citizens' rights by the federal government, providing a crucial layer of protection in American constitutional law.

Frequently asked questions