Changes

==Origin==

==Origin==

The earliest cases involving discussions of incorporation were a series of three cases: ''Hurtado v. California'' (1884), ''Maxwell v. Dow'' (1900), and ''Twining v. New Jersey'' (1908).<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=RiNZtR-KMaEC&pg=PT186 The Judiciary: Tenth Edition]</ref>

The earliest cases involving discussions of incorporation were a series of three cases: ''Hurtado v. California'' (1884), ''Maxwell v. Dow'' (1900), and ''Twining v. New Jersey'' (1908).<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=RiNZtR-KMaEC&pg=PT186 The Judiciary: Tenth Edition]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=RzsrQmeomvwC&pg=PA19 Constitutional Debate in Action: Criminal justice]</ref>  These cases, however, were declined by the court.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=iAkABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 Justice Rehnquist and the Constitution]</ref>  Additionally, in the case of ''Hurtado'', the question was not posed as to whether or not to consult with the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], additionally putting it outside of the official scope of Incorporation Doctrine enactment history.<ref name=seasonedjudgments>[https://books.google.com/books?id=-7lKq0dfs54C&pg=PA121 Seasoned Judgments]</ref>

 

Regardless of the question posed in any of these cases, Justice [[John Marshall Harlan]] insisted in inserting his preference for incorporation into all three via his dissents, marking them as the first cases<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=kv3uCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=%22was+first+voiced+by+harlan+in+dissent+in+hurtado%22&source=bl&ots=51o-nU_wr-&sig=ANsm-nNgQgRYyiuyjIIbh0No10E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7pKzR_eTOAhXGmh4KHdG0A3EQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22was%20first%20voiced%20by%20harlan%20in%20dissent%20in%20hurtado%22&f=false The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary]</ref> in which incorporation as a doctrine was in front of the Supreme Court.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=vKiaiCCKRtAC&pg=PA112 The Price of Politics: Lessons from Kelo V. City of New London]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cY3er3ilgjcC&pg=PA421 The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States]</ref>

==History==

==History==

The first piece of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated was just compensation of the [[Fifth Amendment]] in 1897 in the case ''Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago''.  The writer of the majority opinion in that case was [[John Marshall Harlan]] joined by 6 other justices. The last amendment to be incorporated was the [[Second Amendment]] in the 2010 case ''McDonald v. Chicago''.

The first piece of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated was just compensation of the [[Fifth Amendment]] in 1897 in the case ''Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago''.  The writer of the majority opinion in that case was Justice Harlan, joined by 6 other justices. The last amendment to be incorporated was the [[Second Amendment]] in the 2010 case ''McDonald v. Chicago''. Another important early ''Incorporation'' case was ''Gitlow v. New York''.<ref name=seasonedjudgments />

Another theory to incorporation is use of the Privileges and Immunities Clause also embedded in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was used by lawyers during the [[Slaughterhouse Cases]] in the 1870s but without success because the Court choose to read this provision with the legislative intent as applying only to freed slaves. In his concurring opinion in the 2010 case ''McDonald v. Chicago'', [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Clarence Thomas]] argues that the Privilege and Immunities Clause should be revisited as the proper vehicle through which the Bill of Rights is incorporated.<ref>''McDonald v. Chicago'' (2010), Clarence Thomas concurring opinion with the majority</ref>

Another theory to incorporation is use of the Privileges and Immunities Clause also embedded in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was used by lawyers during the [[Slaughterhouse Cases]] in the 1870s but without success because the Court choose to read this provision with the legislative intent as applying only to freed slaves. In his concurring opinion in the 2010 case ''McDonald v. Chicago'', [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Clarence Thomas]] argues that the Privilege and Immunities Clause should be revisited as the proper vehicle through which the Bill of Rights is incorporated.<ref>''McDonald v. Chicago'' (2010), Clarence Thomas concurring opinion with the majority</ref>