State Bills of Rights

[Paul Finkelman]

Perhaps the more useful term would be "respected"  -- that is these provisions
were to be "respected" by state officials, but if they were ignored then there
was nothing much to do about it, except elect new officials; and of course if the
lack of respect was popular, then the offending officials would be reelected.  It
is worth recalling that in opposing a bill of rights, James Madison argued they
were "parchment barriers" that had no effect; and he was especially critical of
the state bills of rights because he had seen them ignored in Virginia.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK  74104

918-631-3706
Fax 918-631-2194

E-mail:  paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu





David Bernstein wrote:

> Are we perhaps confusing "enforceable" with "judicially enforceable?"  Once
> upon a time, it was thought that when executive and legislative branch
> officials swore an oath to uphold the constitution, that they had an
> obligation to adhere to the constitution as they understood it to the best of
> their abilities.  Thus, even provisions that seem to us to be extraordinarily
> vague and therefore not subject to judicial review would have been
> "enforceable" in the sense that government officials were expected to take
> cognizance of the provisions and act on them as part of their constitutional
> duties.  So, perhaps, as naive as it seems today, these provisions were to be
> enforced by the very officials that the provisions constrained.
>
> David Bernstein