|
|
|
|
|
Adamson V. CaliforniaAdamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947) was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This case marked the commencement of a unique period in the life of Justice Black where he began to refer to John Lilburne as a primary source for America's claims to individual liberty. Background Adamson had refused to testify on his behalf during his trial on charges of first-degree murder. Prosecutors, pursuant to California law, highlighted this fact to the jury, which eventually returned a guilty verdict. Adamson appealed, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applicable to state courts. The Court majority rejected this claim, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment did not automatically incorporate the entire Bill of Rights against the states. In this view, only those rights which are seen as fundamental or essential to "ordered liberty" are protected by the Due Process Clause. Dissent of Hugo Black The case is known largely for the dissent of Justice Hugo Black, who through a deep analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, called for a total incorporation approach (versus the approach of his colleagues who opted for a theory that has become known as 'gradual incorporation'. In 'booklet-sized' dissent, Black argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was crafted specifically for the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights to the states, and that the Court had unnecessarily thwarted this goal in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1872. It was during the writing of this dissent that Hugo Black first began to identify himself and several of his Opinions with the ideas of Freeborn John Lilburne. His son later told Genie Baskir that his father began to see himself as carrying on the fight for individual liberty that Lilburne had begun in the 1600s. Justice Murphy Justice Frank Murphy went further than Black and argued that the Due Process Clause incorporated not only all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, but other fundamental rights as well (as per the Ninth Amendment). The Court eventually reversed itself in later cases (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) on the single issue of the Fifth Amendment (except for the grand jury clause), and today holds that the provisions of the Fifth Amendment apply to the states, as well as to the federal goverment. See also: References= 1968 Yearbook of Encyclopedia Britannica: Democracy's Heritage, by Black, Hugo. - Ghost-written by the second wife of Hugo Black, this article traces the prigins of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the third draft of the proposed constitution written by John Lilburne and others in 1649 called An Agreement of the Free People of England.
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|