Reply To: William Rawle's Constitutional Commentary


Yes, Rawle’s interpretation of the BOR is suspect and he implies that because several States did not have a BOR that the federal BOR applies to the States, with the exception of the First (though he does say that the BOR restricts the legislature when introducing the subject, and by legislature he meant the U.S. Congress). I would say that his interpretation is incorrect (even SCOTUS agreed in Baron v. Baltimore) and that the founding generation in general would disagree with his interpretation, but that does not minimize his position on the Union and secession. Even Story got some things right in his “Commentaries.”