Talk:Barron v. Baltimore

message: At the end of the article, it is stated/implied that the entirety of the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. This is untrue. Certain Supreme Court cases have set precedent such that specific rights offered by the Bill of Rights apply to states. Someone ought to do something about this. :]  
:I fixed it, but it's not really perfect. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: One of the attorney's in this case is a Marylander name Taney. Could that be Roger Taney before he became Chief Justice? --Daysleeper47 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taney

message: I clipped the following section from the article just now. Wikipedia articles should not be quote dumps. There's Wikiquote for that.
---
* "The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states."
* 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 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 purposes."
* "Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention."
* "These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation 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."
---
I'm not sure any of these need to be re-added to the article. Dumping them here so they're not completely lost to the page history. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important quotations" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barron v. Baltimore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516101253/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html
*Added  tag to http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/index.html
*Added  tag to http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/32%20U.S.%20243.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The significance of Barron v Baltimore is solely attributable to the lack of the 14th Amendment to the US Const. regarding State Action, in this case, a municipality taking private property without due process of law, under color of eminent domain. Taking of property by State action without due process of law is expressly proscribed by the 14th A. US Const. So Barron v Baltimore  involved a threshold jurisdictional issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazintommyd (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. The 14th amendment did not incorporate the bill of rights. An incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment from the 20th century incorporated parts of the bill of rights. When the 14th amendment was ratified, Congress specifically stated that the 14th amendment does not mean the bill of rights when it's talking about privileges and immunities Pepper-0 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was a Jurisdictional Issue