0
What could the US Supreme Court have done with the incorporation doctrine?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Yes, the US Supreme Court has used selective incorporation to apply the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, as such application became relevant. The First, Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendments are fully incorporated; the Fifth is mostly incorporated; the Eighth is partially incorporated; the Third is incorporated only in the Second Circuit; the Seventh is currently unincorporated.
If the Court didn't support incorporation the Bill of Rights would have become applicable to the states all at once, or not at all.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe US Supreme Court could have applied the Bill of Rights to the states through total incorporation (also called "mechanical incorporation" or "complete incorporation") by upholding the constitutionality of Congress' civil rights legislation passed under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, Enforcement Clause or the Section 1 Privileges and Immunities Clause, but rejected the opportunity. Instead, the Court has used the process of selective incorporation, which applies the Amendments in a piecemeal fashion as required by decisions in individual cases.
As of June 2010, only the First, Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendments have been fully incorporated, and the Fifth Amendment has been mostly incorporated. The Supreme Court will decide in June 2010 whether to incorporate the Second Amendment, which, along with the Seventh Amendment, are currently unincorporated.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Can congressional nullification overturn the ruling of the supreme court?
No the Congress can not nullify a ruling of the Supreme Court. The Congress would have to rewrite the law which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional. Then the new law could overrule the Supreme Court IF the new law was declared constitutional if/when appealed.
How did the supreme court respond to the growth of racial segregation?
The Supreme Court at first said that it was the states' business and the federal government could not interfere. Later on, the Supreme Court made racial segregation illegal.
What does 'establishment' of the US Supreme Court mean?
The Supreme Court was established, or created, so that it could operate as required by Article III of the Constitution. Congress established the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Could a 12 year old be elected into the Supreme Court?
No.
When did the supreme court hear a case that could have had ramifications for common every day citizens?
The US Supreme Court hears such cases every year.
How do you think the US might be different today if the Supreme court had not applied to the process of incorporation to the Due Process Clause?
If the Supreme Court had not applied the process of incorporation to the Due Process Clause, it's likely that certain provisions in the Bill of Rights would only apply to the federal government, and not to state governments. This would result in uneven protection of individual rights across the country, potentially leading to a patchwork of laws and regulations depending on the state. Additionally, it could limit the ability of individuals to seek redress for violations of these rights at the state level.
When you sue an attorney is it in civil court or supreme court?
You would sue an attorney in civil court. They could also be tried criminally. The Supreme court is for appeals. They are the final appeals court. The last word n any subject.
Which court could declare final word on constitutionality of Federal law?
The highest court in the United States is the United States Supreme Court. No case may be appealed beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the court's decision is final.
Which federal court could declare the final word on the constitutionality of state law?
supreme court ^O^
What Supreme Court case stated that Congress could not forbid slavery in any territory?
the English court
What is the incorporation theory?
The incorporation doctrine is the legal theory that allows the Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It made most of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) apply to the state governments as well as to the federal government. Under the original understanding of the Constitution, the power of the states was not limited by the Bill of Rights. States could restrict freedom of speech, search without warrants, and deny trial by jury, just to name three examples. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not change this understanding. But starting in 1925, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court began to rule that some rights were so fundamental to the conception of due process of law that they must apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits any state from denying due process of law to any person. The Supreme Court generally allowed states to restrict a fundamental right only if the authorities had a compelling reason for the law, and only if the law was narrowly tailored to accomplish a permissible purpose. Some justices complained that there was no objective standard to judge which rights were fundamental and which were not, which reasons were compelling and which were merely rational. While the incorporation doctrine greatly expanded the rights of Americans, it also transferred to the Supreme Court much of the power that had resided in state governments since the founding of the nation. Decisions about limits on police power, searches, confessions, free speech and prayer in school, topless dancing, Ten Commandments displays, abortion, vagrancy laws, and the death penalty all were taken out of the hands of state lawmakers and judges and turned over to the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The incorporation doctrine is one of the reasons for the fierce political battles over nominees to the federal bench. The definition of fundamental rights and compelling state interests can change with the personal values and political views of the judges.
Can the Federal Reserve override the supreme court?
No. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and federal laws is definitive. There are situations where a federal agency (or the Federal Reserve) could change its policy slightly to try to work around a Supreme Court decision while still basically doing the same thing, but that isn't "overriding" the Supreme Court.
