If the Supreme Court still followed the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution there is only one possible decision they could reach in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Because this case involves freedom of speech and freedom of religion they would have to rule that they have no jurisdiction over this case. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is specifically to restrain the federal government from involving itself in any in matters involving rights protected by the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Constitution believed if the federal government had jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights they would ultimately abuse this power and strip us of our rights.
The states alone have jurisdiction over God-given Natural Rights. The Bill of Rights of the Unites Sates does not apply to the states. The states have their own bills of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states. I know this may seem controversial to a great many readers of this article. That is only because the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been distorted by so many institutions of this country.
Academia, the federal government, and the media are responsible for advancing these distortions. They only preach the modern belief that the Supreme Court can overrule the Sates on cases involving the Bill of Rights. There is no proof of this located anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of Rights, or the transcripts of the writing and ratification of those documents. There is abundant evidence supporting my claim that the Bill of Rights prevents the Supreme Court from ruling on cases involving the Bill of Rights. In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, in 1798. The full text has been reproduced here. Resolution 3 is proof that the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from interfering with rights protected by the Bill of Rights and prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling in cases involving those rights.
Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.
During the ratification of the United States Constitution there were numerous calls for a Bill of Rights that would protect our most important rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them. There were few, if any, calls for additions to the US Constitution that would restrain the states in any way. During the writing of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives seventeen amendments were written. Sixteen of the amendments applied to the federal government alone. The seventeenth amendment, written by James Madison, did specifically apply to the states. Here is the debate involving that amendment, which took place on August 17, 1789
Article 1, section 10, between the first and second paragraph, insert “no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.”
Mr. Tucker.–This is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of the constitutions of particular States. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the State Governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I therefore move, sir, to strike out these words…
This transposition being agreed to, and Mr. Tucker’s motion being rejected, the clause was adopted.
This amendment was one of seventeen passes by the House of Representatives. Here is the list. That amendment was not passed by the Senate. Here is the transcript of the joint resolution of the Bill of Rights that passed both houses. It does not include the amendment that applied to the states. It was also missing from the Bill of Rights that was ratified.
I know the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states distresses a lot of people because they believe the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution alone grants all rights to every single individual in this country. That is untrue because all rights are granted to us by God. The Bill of Rights only protects our rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them in any way. Every state has a bill of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states. The people of the states are the ultimate defense against the states encroaching on their rights. This is far better than leaving these monumental decisions in the hands of nine unelected individuals, who are essentially appointed to the Supreme Court for life. The Constitution created a bottom up government not a top down government.
The Supreme Court, the rest of the federal government, and a great many individuals have been operating under the delusion that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the States. I discuss this at length in this article,
It is wrong that the state of Colorado is forcing individuals to violate their right of conscience, which is one of the most important God-given Natural Rights. It would be a far greater wrong if the Supreme Court stripped the right of conscience from every individual in this country by ruling incorrectly on this case. That is why the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never granted the Federal government jurisdiction over our rights