GPOSC 225 1st Edition Lecture 12Outline of Last Lecture A. National Banka. McCulloch vs. MarylandB. GIBBONS vs OGDEN (1824)C. CommerceD. US v. E.C. KNIGHT COMPANYE. HAMMER v. DAGENHARTF. LOCHNER v. NEW YORK ( 1905) -G. “SWITCH IN TIME THAT SAVED 9” –a. WEST COAST HOTEL COMPANY v. PARRISH (1937) –b. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. (1937)H. U.S. v. DARBY LUMBER (1941)I. WICKARD v. FILBURN (1941Outline of Current Lecture 1. Federalists argument against the Bill of Rights2. Anti-Federalist argument for the Bill of Rights3. Incorporation of the Bill of Rightsa. Barron V Baltimore (1833)b. Slaughterhouse CasesCurrent Lecture - Arguments for and against the Bill of RightsFederalistsFederalists didn’t want a Bill of rights – the conversation was broached at the constitutional convention. George Mason (BOR writer for the VA state constitution) wanted to draft one. Antifederalist objection to the lack of BOR.1. There was an underlying political concern to having a bill of rights. Amendments might begin to undo and alter the constitution structurally. BOR could turn into a structural unraveling of the constitution. Change term limits on members of congress, etc. 2. We don’t need a bill of rights; it’s superfluous to the delegated enumerated powers.These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.a. State constitutions already have themb. State constitutions have a different structure where states can do things unless it says they can’t. National government, it was assumed, could ONLY do the things explicitly stated.3. Dangerous. BOR might define rights too narrowly.a. Danger of omission (e.g.) there is no explicit right to privacy.b. Madison is worried about religious liberty. How do you define it? What if it is defined too narrowly?4. Don’t need a bill of rights because we have the “jealousy of the states”. State governments already protect your rights against the National Government.5. BOR is just a parchment barrier anyway- it usually doesn’t protect you when a majority power wants to take away your rights.Anti-Federalists1. The constitution already grants unspecific, implied powers to Congress.2. Constitution already bans some congressional powers (article 1 section 9) a. Habeas corpusb. Ex post facto law (passing a law after the fact)3. Danger of omission vs. at least we have something written. “half loaf is better than no bread (Madison vs. Jefferson)4. Supremacy clause (article 6) – can a U.S./ treaty invade the rights of the people? Supreme law of the land means they could enforce it onto states, and then how does thejealousy of the states protect us?5. Enumerated rights are like a political education for the people. Over time the BOR will become sacred and people will be reluctant to violate thema. Madison saw the value here. BOR will shape how people behave. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights1. Nationalizationfor the Bill of Rights. No matter where I go I should have the same rights –but this didn’t always apply!a. Article 1 (sec 9-10) already protected your civil liberties. Specifically habeas corpus the right to be brought before a judge before incarcerated.b. “your rights” have not always applied to state governments2. BARRON v. BALTIMORE 1833a. State dumped so much dirt into Barrons wharf that boats could not dock. Barron sued the state government based on the 5th amendment (you can’t take my property without due cause or compensation)b. Supreme Court ruled that the BOR does not apply to the states.3. Why? a. Because the BOR is in order to restrict the national government ANDb. Because Article 1 section 10 restrictions on the states are stated in the constitution. 4. Slaughterhouse Casesa. 14th amendment (3 important clauses that we will cover next class)i. Privileges and Immunities clauseii. Due Process Clauseiii. ? (next class)Gideon v Wainwright VideoGideon was a drifter and petty criminal charged for stealing change and drinks. Appealed that he had a right to a lawyer, but he was tried by the state of Florida. Criminal law is mostly state law. His case got all the way to Justice Hugo Black in the Supreme