Is there really any serious doubt as to the applicability of any part of the bill of rights in D.C.?

I was always taught that the Constitution (and by extension, all of its amendments) is a part of the Federal law, and would therefore be applicable as law in all places which are part of the U.S.A., regardless of statehood. I'd doubt if anyone on either side of any debate would realistically imagine opening up a can of worms with the potential to create a precedent for the suspension of all 1st, 4th and 5th amendment protections in any part of the country (especially considering the track record of the current administration in some of those areas).

The only constitutional protenctions which I could see any argument for limiting in D.C. would be in the parts dealing with the relationship between the States and the Feteral government, since the Constitution clearly defines that the location of the Capitol is to be outside of any particular state, and that much of the District's governmental responsibilities fall by definition on the Feds, making the concept of "States' Rights" in that area inapplicable in many ways.

bmgreene:

Is there really any serious doubt as to the applicability of any part of the bill of rights in D.C.?

Its especially bizarre when one considers that in the early days of the republic, the BoR most certainly did NOT apply to the states. The District, as a total creature of the Federal Government, would have been one of the few places where the BoR could have been counted upon to apply fully.

Dear Sir,

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

All the laws of the United States are subject to the Constitution,

God Bless You

Read the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

degsme:

Read the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment.

I think what you're referring to is the incorporation doctrine, which makes the federal Constitution applicable in limiting the powers of the governments of the states, in addition to limiting the powers of the Federal Government.

I don't see how that applies to the issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights is 100% applicable in D.C. though, since DC is governend primarily by the Feds, and there shouldn't be any case in which the federal Costitution is not applicable to the Federal Government.

Well that's an interesting qiuestion. I thought htat the Fed jurisdiction pertained to State level functions, but local City level functions - and as I understand it, this ban is a City based law - was still local (but subject to Incorporation).

Degs, are you saying that DC could put a ban on free speach, press, the right to assemble and every religion but muslim? After all if it's their right to ban guns, then wouldn't it also be thier right to ban all of the Bill of Rights? I'd like to see them try to ban the 13th amendment or the press. I'd bet you my bottom dollar the left would have a field day with that.