What doctrine of rights did both the "no incorporation" justices and the "plus incorporation" justices use to expand the notion of legal rights?
bill of rights which carefully listed and defined rights
Ah, the doctrine of rights! It's like a fancy dress party for legal concepts. Well, the "no incorporation" justices were probably big fans of the "Less is More" doctrine of rights. They believed that the rights listed in the Constitution were all we needed, like a minimalist decorating style for legal protection. Whereas, the "plus incorporation" justices were more like "Go big or go home" enthusiasts. They embraced the "More is More" doctrine of rights, arguing that additional rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution could also be protected, like adding extra toppings on your pizza. So, you could say they both had their own unique way of expanding the notion of legal rights, like the "less is more" vs. "more is more" fashion rivalry.
Both the "no incorporation" justices and the "plus incorporation" justices used the doctrine of substantive due process to expand the notion of legal rights. However, they interpreted and applied this doctrine differently.
The "no incorporation" justices believed that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not automatically incorporate the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution) to apply to the states. They argued that the Fourteenth Amendment only protected procedural rights and did not extend to substantive rights. They believed that states should be free to determine which rights to recognize and protect.
On the other hand, the "plus incorporation" justices believed in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that the due process clause protected not only procedural rights but also substantive rights, ensuring fundamental fairness and justice. They believed that these fundamental rights were implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and should be applied uniformly to all states.
Overall, while both sides relied on the doctrine of substantive due process, they had differing views on the extent to which it incorporated the Bill of Rights and expanded the notion of legal rights.
To understand the doctrine of rights and its application by both the "no incorporation" and "plus incorporation" justices, we need to first explore the concept of incorporation.
Incorporation, in the context of constitutional law in the United States, involves applying the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, originally only applicable to the federal government, become binding on state governments as well.
Now, let's consider the two groups of justices you mentioned:
1. "No incorporation" justices: These justices argued against the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. They believed that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not impose any requirement on states to abide by the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. According to their perspective, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, leaving the states with the power to determine their own citizen's rights within the framework of their own constitutions and laws.
2. "Plus incorporation" justices: These justices advocated for expanding the notion of legal rights by supporting the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. They believed that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause should be interpreted as requiring states to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. They argued that these rights were essential to protecting individual liberty and ensuring equal treatment under the law, regardless of whether the state or federal government was involved.
In summary, the "no incorporation" justices disputed the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, while the "plus incorporation" justices supported the idea of extending these rights to state governments as well.