WI Madison's Incorporation Amendment Passes?

The proposed article was introduced June 1789, passed the House, and was defeated in the Senate after secret debate and a secret vote. This is the amendment in question:

No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.

What would have happened if it had passed the Senate? How long do you think ratification would take? And what would be the effect on America and its laws?
 
Hmm.
One possible butterfly: (assuming things go as OTL otherwise, which isn't necessarily guaranteed) what if the 15th (OTL 14th) amendment doesn't include incorporation, since this one already does?

Another butterfly: abolitionists in the 1820s and 1830s may use this amendment to attempt to attack Southern censorship laws preventing the circulation and publication of anti-slavery works, among other laws. Think of David Walker's Appeal, for instance. Not sure how that would go down - I could see a situation where the Supreme Court rules in favor of Walker or Lloyd Garrison or some other abolitionist plaintiff, but the southern states ignore their ruling. How might Jackson or van Buren or whoever react in that situation?
 
Hmm.
One possible butterfly: (assuming things go as OTL otherwise, which isn't necessarily guaranteed) what if the 15th (OTL 14th) amendment doesn't include incorporation, since this one already does?

Another butterfly: abolitionists in the 1820s and 1830s may use this amendment to attempt to attack Southern censorship laws preventing the circulation and publication of anti-slavery works, among other laws. Think of David Walker's Appeal, for instance. Not sure how that would go down - I could see a situation where the Supreme Court rules in favor of Walker or Lloyd Garrison or some other abolitionist plaintiff, but the southern states ignore their ruling. How might Jackson or van Buren or whoever react in that situation?

Jackson goes in swinging, and likely wins. Not so much with anyone else.
 
I think, if passed, the first issues would arise when fire eaters try and extinguish anti-slavery speech. That said, most of it was done by mobs not sponsored by the states themselves..
 
Wow, this is certainly one hell of a butterfly -- I'm tempted to ask for more, though it's a fascinating facet in its own right...

Jackson goes in swinging, and likely wins. Not so much with anyone else.

Is he swinging at the abolitionists or the fire eaters? Or can he even do both?

Hmm.
One possible butterfly: (assuming things go as OTL otherwise, which isn't necessarily guaranteed) what if the 15th (OTL 14th) amendment doesn't include incorporation, since this one already does?

I'm not sure I follow; as to how other things go as OTL, one parameter I will set is Marbury v Madison happens as OTL...
 
This makes arguments regarding the intent of the first two amendments to the Constitution rather more interesting.
 
In some ways I'm more intrigued by the initial draft of the Second Amendment - which would have stood a far better chance of ratification. Had it been allowed to stand, the 2A's staunchest supporters would be pacifists.

As far as Mr Madison's Amendment goes, this was a new verse of his old song. As far back as the Constitutional Convention, he had tried to give the Federal government a veto power over State laws. Turned down there, it would seem that he tried to get a more limited version of the same idea via an Amendment - and predictably got turned down again. Even had he not been, I can't see why any State Legislature would ratify it. More likely they would resent the interference.
 
The proposed article was introduced June 1789, passed the House, and was defeated in the Senate after secret debate and a secret vote. This is the amendment in question:



What would have happened if it had passed the Senate? How long do you think ratification would take? And what would be the effect on America and its laws?

Honestly this probably leads to a more limited understanding of the extent of those rights. We might just get the narrow 'no prior restraint' version of liberty of the press and of free speech, for instance.

What a cool POD, though.
 
I was thinking there'd likely be an "incorporation movement" popping up sometime before then; I vaguely see ratification by 1820, or if the national dialogue on slavery proves to be a central player, by 1840...


I don't really see what would generate such a movement in 1820. As for the slavery issue, do you see North or South favouring the Amendment? Afaics, whichever section supports it, the other is likely to oppose.
 
Well, the North, in opposition to Southern attempts at censorship...


Trouble is, as late as 1857 there are only 31 States, so only eight rejections are needed to prevent ratification. Given that there are fifteen Slave States altogether, that "blocking quarter" would seem virtually certain to be obtained.

Ratifications could start to increase after 1854, but they'll be stopped cold at the Mason-Dixon Line. I don't see it getting any further until the Civil War or after.

Sorry to be such a nay-sayer on this one, but iirc the whole impetus for the Bill of Rights came from those who feared that the stronger Federal Government set up in 1788 would create a tyranny. Making it applicable to the individual States would be seen as at best irrelevant, at worst dangerous in that it could give Washington a pretext for interference in the States' internal affairs. Experience of the Alien and Sedition Acts would serve only to reinforce that attitude, so I don't see any eagerness to ratify in the early Republic - and once the slavery issue starts to loom large, the country is too polarised for it ever to get three-fourths.
 
Top