Originally Posted by Yunus
I agree with you Gork, but aren't we praising the courts recent decision which reduced the power of the StateS to a power held by the State?
In the context of only the first 10 amendments, yes. In the context of 14A, no.
Should a state have the authority to ban all media and internet discussion of a political party or candidate(s)? Most would agree that would be an infringement of 1A and that it is wrong. You can argue two things here. First, if a state did this (and some states DID elevate some religions over others and ban certain publications), the citizens of that state should rise up against their oppressive government and toss them out on their cans; we should not rely on Big Daddy Federal Government to come to the rescue. Second, one could argue that 14A was never legally ratified (it wasn't) and that it and anything based on it is a nullity. Reality being what it is, however, that isn't going to fly.
I take your point: we are applauding a big, central government stepping in and setting rules for states that fall OUTSIDE the body of the Constitution and which rest solely on 14a.