Question

The U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Barron v. Baltimore held that the 23 civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not applicable to the individual states; yet the Declaration of Rights—or Article 1 in Nevada’s state constitution—largely replicated those provisions of the Bill of Rights to protect state citizens from a potentially overzealous state government. Group of answer choices True False

Answer 1

True. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's Bill of Rights confines just the forces of the government and not those of the state governments. The case started with a claim documented by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, guaranteeing that the city had denied him of his property disregarding the Fifth Amendment, which gives that the legislature may not take private property without just pay. He asserted that the city destroyed his bustling wharf in Baltimore Harbor by storing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a street development venture that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to even consider docking most vessels. The state court found that the city had illegally denied Barron of private property and granted him $4,500 in harms, to be paid by the city in pay. A re-appraising court at that point switched this honor. Barron spoke to the Supreme Court, which assessed the case in 1833.

The Supreme Court, in a choice composed by Chief Justice John Marshall, decided that Barron had no case against the state under the Bill of Rights in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights doesn't make a difference to the states. The Court declared that the Constitution was made "by the individuals of the United States" to apply just to the administration that the Constitution had made - the government - and "not for the legislature of the individual expresses." The different states had drafted constitutions just to apply to themselves, restricting the activities of just state governments. Hence, "the Fifth Amendment must be comprehended as confining the intensity of the general government, not as pertinent to the states." The Court contended that the legitimacy of this end is supported by the way that the Constitution no place expresses that the Bill of Rights additionally restrains the activities of state governments, Thus, the territory of Maryland, through the activities of the city of Baltimore, didn't encroach on the Constitution. With no government guarantee, the Supreme Court in this manner needed ward (or capacity) to hear Barron's case and rejected it.