<p>Yes, but the Bill of rights – all of them – apply equally to the States. And while the states are free to grant MORE rights than are secured by the US Constitution, they are NOT free to impinge on those rights. That is what it means to be a citizen of the United States!</p>
<p>I think the supreme court would probably have to decide the way that they just decided that oregons doctors have the right to supply terminally ill patients with meds</p>
<p>
The 14th Amendment pretty much applied all of the “rights and immunities” of the US Constitution to the states. That much is settled. It’s the definition and nature of those rights and immunities that are now at issue, not their applicability. I see no reference to Christmas trees, holiday shrubs, or solstice bushes in the original text, however.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>I’m glad you appear to be conceding that no twisting was required to interpret the 14th Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states.</p>
<p>Are you upset that courts are asked to interpret three-phrases like “establishment of religion”? </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has no issues with Christmas trees. If some poor mayor is afraid to display one one city land, put the blame where it belongs: not on the Supreme Court, but on Bill O’Reilly. He’s the one running around trying to convince everyone that they’ll be sued for putting up a Christmas tree.</p>