Comment back to these 2 posts:

Kristina:

The process through which the rights contained within the Bill of Rights were nationalized primarily occurred through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. It provided that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. One challenge was the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment itself. The language of the amendment, particularly the Due Process Clause, was subject to differing interpretations regarding its intended scope and application to state laws. This ambiguity led to debates over whether the Fourteenth Amendment required incorporating specific provisions of the Bill of Rights and resistance from states' rights advocates. Many proponents of states' rights argued against the nationalization of the Bill of Rights, contending that it would infringe upon the autonomy of state governments. These advocates believed that states should retain the authority to govern themselves without interference from the federal government, including in matters concerning individual rights. Initially, the Supreme Court staunchly resisted the nationalization of the Bill of Rights, which involves applying most of its rights to limit the powers of state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Nationalization of the Bill of Rights, 2018). Between 1870 and 1900, the Court issued a series of rulings asserting that the Due Process Clause did not compel states to employ juries in civil cases exceeding $20, indict criminal defendants through grand juries, or provide jury trials for criminal defendantsrequirements mandated by the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments for the federal government. These decisions elicited strong dissents from Justice John Marshall Harlan, who contended that the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to extend all Bill of Rights protections as limitations on state and local government authority. The nationalization of the Bill of Rights is essential because nationalizing the Bill of Rights helps ensure that all citizens enjoy the same fundamental rights and protections regardless of where they live within the United States, promoting consistency and equality under the law while expanding federal authority over the states in certain respects, nationalizing the Bill of Rights also reinforces the federalist structure of the U.S. government by establishing a framework for balancing state autonomy with the protection of individual rights, and by extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states ensures that fundamental rights are respected at all levels of government, safeguarding individuals against potential abuses of power by state governments. The readiness of the Court to extend guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states evolved over time. Various factors, including legal interpretations, societal changes, and landmark cases, marked it. Initially, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and did not apply most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. However, as societal norms shifted and legal theories evolved, the Court became more prepared to extend these guarantees to the states. Powell v. Alabama was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1932. The case arose from the infamous Scottsboro Boys trial, where nine African American teenagers were accused of raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. In this case, the defendants were quickly convicted and sentenced to death in a highly prejudiced trial that lacked adequate legal representation. The defendants were represented by court-appointed attorneys who met them for the first time on the day of the trial and did not have sufficient time or resources to prepare a defense. Additionally, the trial took place in a hostile environment where the defendants faced intense racial bias. The primary issue in Powell v. Alabama was whether the defendant's right to counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, was violated due to the inadequate legal representation they received during the trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was referenced in this case (Legal Dictionary, n.d.). The Sixth Amendment provides various rights to individuals accused of crimes, including the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to confront witnesses, and, crucially, the right to assistance of counsel for their defense.

Morgan:

I feel like freedom of speech is very important, however, censorship isn't really necessary. I feel like the world is so closed off already, that we should be exposed to other sides of stories. Rather than letting the media we watch just deicide our opinions for us, we should be able to find more than just surface level information. In order to get a grasp on what's going on in the world and in other communities, those resources should be accessible. This isn't just limited to the internet but this reaches out to books being censored or banned in schools, as well cyber bullying. We can censor books about diverse families but we can still let kids get bullied to the point of self harm? It's mind boggling.

The case I'm referring to for this discussion is Garden District Book Shop v. Caldwell, which covers any publication made in Louisiana (on the library database above) has to have an age verification page prior to viewing. The age verification page isn't just stopping minor from viewing sexual or violent content, but it also umbrella's over reproductive health which stated in the article, all minors have the constitutional right to gain this knowledge.