Barron V. Baltimore Case Analysis

In 1833, the Supreme Court confronted with the argument that a state government had violated one of the provision of the Bill of Rights. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution 's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments (McBride, 2017). This is the doctrine that considered settled law within the judicial establishment. There was a debate concerning the nature of Bill of Rights. The debate focused on the positive law that deals with the restriction on the power of government, either if it was just federal, or both federal government and states, which would not exist if they repealed; or if recognitions of fundamental rights that exist

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Marshall, ruled that Barron did not have a claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. Even though the people of the United States created the Constitution, to apply to the government that the Constitution had created the federal government and not for the government of the individual states. The case had no federal claim, and the Supreme Court lacked power to hear the Barron 's case and dismissed it. Once the Fourteenth Amendment passed after the Civil War, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, which ban states from depriving citizens of life; liberty; property without due process of law, as well as incorporating or applying most of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states (McBride,

In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court extended the exclusionary rule to the states. Also, the cases illustrated the process of selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Tom Clark held that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective manner. He also said that a federal prosecutor may make no use of illegally obtained evidence, but a state prosecutor can, but he must operate under the enforceable prohibition of the same Amendment. Justice Tom Clark also said, if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law (FindLaw, 2017). Also, the court reasoned that if a "criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than failure to observe its own laws, or worse, disregard the charter of its own existence (Bill of Rights Institute,