Baron V. Baltimore Case Analysis

618 Words3 Pages
The United States’ Bill of Rights was effected in December 15, 1791. This was done two years after the Congress forwarded to the state Legislatures twelve proposed constitution amendments. The third amendment through to the twelfth amendment were adopted to become the Bill of Rights of the United States. The proposition of the Bill of Rights was done by James Madison mainly as a response to constitution opponents including some founding fathers who were against the ratification of the constitution on grounds that it failed to safeguard basic human liberty principles. On June 8, 1791 he presented a series of thirty-nine constitution amendments to the House of Representatives part of which proposed the constitution to be opened up and specific…show more content…
Baltimore (1833) Supreme Court ruling set the precedent that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the national government but not to state and local governments. The case started after Baron placed a lawsuit against the Baltimore city for depriving him of his property against the Fifth Amendment whose provision states that the government may not deprive an individual of their property without just compensation. His claim was that the city had blocked his wharf in Baltimore Harbor with sand and soil from road construction making it shallow and difficult for most of the ships to dock. The state court ruled that the city had deprived Baron of his property and awarded him $ 4500 compensation. Afterwards an appellate court overturned the previous ruling. Baron then appealed to the Supreme Court but it upheld the ruling that Baron had no claim against the state under the Fifth Amendment since it only applied to the federal government but not the state governments (Carter p72). Incorporation theory refers to the Supreme Court interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protection of the selected rights from the Bill of Rights to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive any individual of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This amendment can be viewed as the shadow of Fifth Amendment cast to cater for the rights of individuals under the state governments (Laura & Olson
Open Document