This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the end of the article, it is stated/implied that the entirety of the Bill of Rights now applies to the states. This is untrue. Certain Supreme Court cases have set precedent such that specific rights offered by the Bill of Rights apply to states. Someone ought to do something about this. :]
Barron v. Baltimore made it so that the 5th Amendment's "due-process" clause wasn't applicable to the states.
Doesn't the full citation belong in wikiSource? Rklawton 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"The case is particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights could not be selectively incorporated." But this isn't true either. The Seventh Amendment's civil jury guarantee, wasn't incorporated against the States. Am I missing something, or should this sentence be changed? ConDissenter 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
wasn't the reason barron sued baltimore in the first place because the city of baltimore was conducting pavement construction that caused his wharf to fill with sand? the article is not very clear and makes it seem as if barron filed suit for no good reason other than to recover lost funds that were in no way associated with baltimore.
One of the attorney's in this case is a Marylander name Taney. Could that be Roger Taney before he became Chief Justice? -- Daysleeper47 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I clipped the following section from the article just now. Wikipedia articles should not be quote dumps. There's Wikiquote for that.
---
---
I'm not sure any of these need to be re-added to the article. Dumping them here so they're not completely lost to the page history. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barron v. Baltimore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/32%20U.S.%20243.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The significance of Barron v Baltimore is solely attributable to the lack of the 14th Amendment to the US Const. regarding State Action, in this case, a municipality taking private property without due process of law, under color of eminent domain. Taking of property by State action without due process of law is expressly proscribed by the 14th A. US Const. So Barron v Baltimore involved a threshold jurisdictional issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazintommyd ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)