Answer :
The Barron v. Maryland case highlighted a conflict between state power and individual rights with the Supreme Court ruling that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. This established a dual system of civil liberties, which led to varying standards of protection against state and local governments until the Fourteenth Amendment sought to address the imbalance.
Conflict Between State Power and Individual Rights
The conflict between state power and individual rights as represented in the Barron v. Maryland case of 1833 revolves around the application of the Bill of Rights to state actions. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's provision, which requires just compensation for takings of private property for public use, applied only to the federal government and not the state governments. The case signifies the historical establishment of a dual system of civil liberties, with one set of standards at the national level and varying standards at the state and local levels.
This dual system meant that the extent of an individual's civil liberties could depend on their location and the level of government they were dealing with. The Barron decision was significant because it highlighted the limitations of the Bill of Rights in protecting against state and local government abuses, a situation that was later addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, for a long time, the Supreme Court did not interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to states, which continued the debate over federalism and the scope of individual rights under state governance.
