Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a wharf owner in the Baltimore harbor, unsuccessfully claimed that the Defendant’s, City of Baltimore, action of ruining the use of his wharf violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because the Bill of Rights is inapplicable to the states.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the exercise of power of the federal government and is inapplicable to state legislation.
Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether the state’s action violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Held. No. Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since there is no repugnancy between the state’s actions and the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States also held that the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to the states. The Court reasoned that had the framers of the Bill of Rights intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have expressed that intention.
Discussion. Marshall’s Court looks to the framer’s intent to find that the Bill of Rights applies only to the national government, thereby forcing states to adopt individual constitutions to protect individual rights.