This is not my conversation and I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but in my experience American's have a largely intuitive sense of their rights understand the Constitution and tend to ascribe those implicit ideas to the Founders without looking at changes along the way that fundamentally modified the Constitution.
What you said about the relationship between the State and the Federal Government the Founders had in mind in 1786 is completely accurate and you will find plenty of Supreme Court decisions, to include McCullough v. Maryland to support this.
This as changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, which is why I have long considered Thaddeus Stevens a true founder and forgotten hero of our Constitution as we now know it.
By granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws, it extended the relationship between the Federal government and the State to the individual and even created 1983 law that allowed citizens to sue their government for civil damages when it violated their Constitutional Rights.
The court has been rolling back our extended rights under the 14th amendment since the 1980's through invented law such as absolute and qualified immunity that activist conservative judges invented out of thin air, but regardless of that the current intuitive understanding of the relationship between the individual and the US Constitution typically factors all this in, even if they wrongly attribute the source to the Founders of 1786 in their original construction of the relationship between individuals and the Constitution.
People focus on the 14th amendment making slaves into citizens, at least on paper at the end of the Civil War as a big deal and it certainly was. What people seem to understand less is that in a very real way we were all granted our citizenship under the Bill of Rights at the same time.
Absolute immunity has been around since at least 1872, and qualified immunity since 1967. I think you run the risk of confusing inert Congress with activist judge.
Why not just codify laws to nullify the immunities?
This is not my conversation and I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but in my experience American's have a largely intuitive sense of their rights understand the Constitution and tend to ascribe those implicit ideas to the Founders without looking at changes along the way that fundamentally modified the Constitution.
What you said about the relationship between the State and the Federal Government the Founders had in mind in 1786 is completely accurate and you will find plenty of Supreme Court decisions, to include McCullough v. Maryland to support this.
This as changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, which is why I have long considered Thaddeus Stevens a true founder and forgotten hero of our Constitution as we now know it.
By granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws, it extended the relationship between the Federal government and the State to the individual and even created 1983 law that allowed citizens to sue their government for civil damages when it violated their Constitutional Rights.
The court has been rolling back our extended rights under the 14th amendment since the 1980's through invented law such as absolute and qualified immunity that activist conservative judges invented out of thin air, but regardless of that the current intuitive understanding of the relationship between the individual and the US Constitution typically factors all this in, even if they wrongly attribute the source to the Founders of 1786 in their original construction of the relationship between individuals and the Constitution.
People focus on the 14th amendment making slaves into citizens, at least on paper at the end of the Civil War as a big deal and it certainly was. What people seem to understand less is that in a very real way we were all granted our citizenship under the Bill of Rights at the same time.
Absolute immunity has been around since at least 1872, and qualified immunity since 1967. I think you run the risk of confusing inert Congress with activist judge.
Why not just codify laws to nullify the immunities?