Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)



Commentary by Jon Roland



It is unfortuate that Justice Butler did not render a dissent in this case,

which further ignored the evidence that the Framers of the 14th

Amendment had intended it to both apply to the states all the rights

recognized in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and to extend the

jurisdiction of U.S. courts to cases involving those rights between a

citizen and his state. See "Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to

Protect All Rights". It was built on a non sequitur from the

Slaughter-House cases, which reasonably rendered a decision by

considering only those rights recognized by the U.S. Constitution that

pertained to that case, to conclude that therefore the 14th Amendment

did not incorporate the entire Bill of Rights. This was compounded by

the decision in Hurtado, which positively declared a person accused of

a crime by a state had no right to a grand jury indictment, and further

compounded by the decision in Twining, which excluded the right

against self-incrimination from incorporation under the 14th Amendment.