Talk:Barron v. Baltimore

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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. :]

I fixed it, but it's not really perfect. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think so. -68.100.68.23 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Barron vs. Baltimore

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.

Taney

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)[reply]

"Important quotations"

I clipped the following section from the article just now. Wikipedia articles should not be quote dumps. There's Wikiquote for that.

---

"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states."

The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."

"Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention."

"These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states."

---

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516101253/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html to http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/index.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ussc.leopoldwilson.info/volume/32/243/32%20U.S.%20243.pdf

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Jurisdictional Issue

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)[reply]

That's not true. The 14th amendment did not incorporate the bill of rights. An incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment from the 20th century incorporated parts of the bill of rights. When the 14th amendment was ratified, Congress specifically stated that the 14th amendment does not mean the bill of rights when it's talking about privileges and immunities Pepper-0 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Environment of Business

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 100%NotQualified, HL742420037, VinMassive2004, WA0313, Financeguyty (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 100%NotQualified (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]