The incorporation debate was re-ignited on July 9, 1985, in a speech by Edwin Meese to the American Bar Association. Mr. Meese was Attorney General of the United States, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Meese's speech contained the following passage:

 Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed that the [Bill of Rights] was a curb on national power. When this view was questioned before the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), Chief Justice Marshall wholeheartedly agreed... [And so generally did the Court until 1925].

 Since [1925] a good portion of constitutional adjudication has been aimed at extending the scope of the doctrine of incorporation; nothing can be done to shore up the intellectually shaky foundation upon which the doctrine rests. And nowhere has the principle of federalism been dealt so politically violent and constitutionally suspect a blow as by the theory of incorporation. 

We have seen the Court move from no application of any federal Bill of Rights liberties to the states, to a doctrine that applies most of them.

What does this evolution tell you about the benefits and limits of simply learning the current rule?

1. What does it suggest about the importance of understanding the types of constitutional arguments, text, history, structure, ethical aspirations, etc?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The evolution of the incorporation doctrine as described in Edwin Meeses speech highlights the complex nature of constitutional interpretation and the ... View the full answer