Barron v. Mayor And City Council of Baltimore 7 Peter（32 U.S.） 243（1833） Chief Justice Marshall [ The question is ] of great importance，but not of much difficulty。The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United State for themselves、for their own government，and not for the government of the individual states。Each state established a constitution for itself，and，in that constitution，provided such limitation and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated。The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation，and best calculated to promote their interests。The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself；and the limitations on power，if expressed in general terms，are naturally，and，we think，necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument。They are limitations of power，granted in the instrument itself；not of distinct governments，framed by different persons and for different purpose。[ If ] these proposition be correct，the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government，not as applicable to the [ states ] The ninth section [ of Art. I ] having enumerated，in the nature of a bill of rights，the limitation intended to be imposed on the power of the general government，tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the state legislatures。[ If ] the original constitution，in the ninth and tenth section of the first article，draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitation it imposes on the powers of the general government，and on those of states；if in every inhibition intended to act on state power，words are employed which directly express that intent；some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments，before that departure can be assumed。We search in vain for that [ reason ] Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments，they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution，and have expressed that [ intention] But it is universally understood，it is a part of the history of the day，that the great revolution which establish the constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition。Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statement，who then watched over the interests of our country，deemed essential to union，and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought，might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty。In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted，amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended。These amendments demanded security against the apprehend encroachments of the general government－not against those of the local governments。In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed，to quiet fears thus extensively entertained，amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress，and adopted by the states。These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments。This court cannot so apply them。We of opinion that the [ just compensation ] provision in the fifth amendment [ 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，We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the [ state’s action ] and the constitution of the United States。The Court，therefore，has no jurisdiction of the cause；and it is dismissed
Posted on: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 06:05:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015