Quote:
I have mixed feelings on this one; I do believe they need somerepercussions. In criminal cases where the police have overstepped their bounds, there have usually only been indirect consequences from the judicial system--cases tossed, evidence disallowed, even previously adjudicated cases re-opened for new sentences and/or trials or even convictions tossed. Now there may be some indirect, but severe consequences from the standpoint of job assignements or even firings, but those would have been from the employer: police superiors, not the court.
Cphillip, in response here is an excerpt from wikipedia on the Bill of Rights:
It is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; however, there is no such limit in the text itself, except where an amendment refers specifically to the federal government. One example is the First Amendment, which says only that "Congress shall make no law...", and under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. A rule of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to extend most, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. Nevertheless, the balance of state and federal power has remained a battle in the Supreme Court.
I will add that neither high school civics nor college poly sci nor a career in the military nor life in general have given me this "common understanding."
Agreed. Just a point I had to make. I, for one, believe that the entire thing should be incorporated myself. To every state.
