Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[elektra]

No one is forcing any children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Children are being adopted, and raised by loving parents who happen to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

Unfortunately that still leaves 100,000 a year unadopted.

You want more of those children to stay unadopted.

That is a lie, pure and simple, they are forced, hell, you are unwilling to tell them, right! Go ahead and tell us all how you explain to a 4 year old they are being adopted by two homosexual men.

You are sick and all that believe like you are sick. A child who does not know what homosexuality is, is forced. Just because you wish homosexual parents for yourself and your children does not make it acceptable to children who have zero idea what homosexuality is.

Hell, if you explain the details to a child, they would be repulsed, as most adults are.

 

[Syriusly]

But back to my point- only a vile POS would call children bastards- that would include you- and any vile bastard who ever called a Palin child a bastard.

Enjoy wallowing in the shit with them.

Alas there has been not the slightest improvement to those comprehension skills (rather, lack thereof).

How can a child born of a male/male or female/female be a bastard when such a child cannot be born. Unless, of course, your efforts at impregnating another male have borne fruit.

But back to my point- only a vile POS would call children bastards- that would include you- and any vile bastard who ever called a Palin child a bastard.

Enjoy wallowing in the shit with them.

 

[Syriusly]

No one is forcing any children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Children are being adopted, and raised by loving parents who happen to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

Unfortunately that still leaves 100,000 a year unadopted.

You want more of those children to stay unadopted.

That is a lie, pure and simple,

Prove it- you make all sorts of crap claims, and never back up any of them.

The fact is that 30,000 children wait 3 years or more to be adopted.
The majority of those children were abandoned by their parents- either because the parents just didn't care, because the parents were addicts, because the parents are in jail- or because the parents were physically or sexually abusive.

I think any child that is abused is a tragedy- you only mention that tragedy when you can blame it on homosexuals.

It is a tragedy that we have so many children waiting to be adopted, abandoned by their parents.

Why don't you give a damn about those children?

 

[Syriusly]

No one is forcing any children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Children are being adopted, and raised by loving parents who happen to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

Unfortunately that still leaves 100,000 a year unadopted.

You want more of those children to stay unadopted.

Hell, if you explain the details to a child, they would be repulsed, as most adults are.

Clearly you have never had a 'bird and the bees' talk with any children.

Children are repulsed when they learn the details of sex- any sex- hell even french kissing is repulsive to most children.

Face it- you just hate homosexuals and project your hatred onto children

 

[elektra]

No one is forcing any children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Children are being adopted, and raised by loving parents who happen to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

Unfortunately that still leaves 100,000 a year unadopted.

You want more of those children to stay unadopted.

That is a lie, pure and simple,

Prove it- you make all sorts of crap claims, and never back up any of them.

The fact is that 30,000 children wait 3 years or more to be adopted.
The majority of those children were abandoned by their parents- either because the parents just didn't care, because the parents were addicts, because the parents are in jail- or because the parents were physically or sexually abusive.

I think any child that is abused is a tragedy- you only mention that tragedy when you can blame it on homosexuals.

It is a tragedy that we have so many children waiting to be adopted, abandoned by their parents.

Why don't you give a damn about those children?

Yes, we understand that homosexuals are abandoning their children, along with heterosexuals.

What is a tragedy is that you think children should be forced into homosexual lifestyles, which is what two homosexuals living together, live.

I wonder, you state you have children, have you taught them the finer points of male of male anal sex, have you taught them lesbian sex, the use of toys, have you taught them the advantages and disadvantages of fisting. How do you explain pumpers to your children?

Do you explain any of this, do you have any idea what you are advocating for everyone else but yourself?

 

[elektra]

Clearly you have never had a 'bird and the bees' talk with any children.

Children are repulsed when they learn the details of sex- any sex- hell even french kissing is repulsive to most children.

Face it- you just hate homosexuals and project your hatred onto children

You must be a bad father, given your views on this subject I can see how your children are repulsed, It is very clear you have no idea what most children think, hence you would not force homosexuality on them.

 

[Syriusly]

No one is forcing any children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Children are being adopted, and raised by loving parents who happen to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

Unfortunately that still leaves 100,000 a year unadopted.

You want more of those children to stay unadopted.

That is a lie, pure and simple,

Prove it- you make all sorts of crap claims, and never back up any of them.

The fact is that 30,000 children wait 3 years or more to be adopted.
The majority of those children were abandoned by their parents- either because the parents just didn't care, because the parents were addicts, because the parents are in jail- or because the parents were physically or sexually abusive.

I think any child that is abused is a tragedy- you only mention that tragedy when you can blame it on homosexuals.

It is a tragedy that we have so many children waiting to be adopted, abandoned by their parents.

Why don't you give a damn about those children?

Yes, we understand that homosexuals are abandoning their children, along with heterosexuals.

What is a tragedy is that you think children should be forced into homosexual lifestyles, which is what two homosexuals living together, live.

I wonder, you state you have children, have you taught them the finer points of male of male anal sex, have you taught them lesbian sex, the use of toys, have you taught them the advantages and disadvantages of fisting. How do you explain pumpers to your children?

Do you explain any of this, do you have any idea what you are advocating for everyone else but yourself?

Why would I be telling any of that to children?

Really what kind of sick monster are you- what kind of conversations do you have with children? Or are you even allowed around children?

When it comes to sex, you teach them what is appropriate for their age group, and base it upon what they want to know.

And most importantly- and always taught- is that sex is something special, and should only happen between two people who respect and care for each other.

And only a sick monster like yourself thinks that children need to be taught about every variation of sex that adults can dream up. Why you think that a 7 year old needs to know how Mommy likes to have Daddy's penis in her anus, or variations there of is beyond me.

Gay parents end up having the talk just like every other parent.

Kids don't want to know how their parents are having sex- no kid wants to here that.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you have never had a 'bird and the bees' talk with any children.

Children are repulsed when they learn the details of sex- any sex- hell even french kissing is repulsive to most children.

Face it- you just hate homosexuals and project your hatred onto children

You must be a bad father, given your views on this subject I can see how your children are repulsed, It is very clear you have no idea what most children think, hence you would not force homosexuality on them.

It is clear you have no idea about parenting and have never raised any children.

I don't force any sexuality on my child- I teach my child to judge people based upon how they treat others and how they treat themselves- and not to judge people based upon their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference.

My kid is turning out fine- and stay the hell away from our family you pervert.

 

[elektra]

It is clear you have no idea about parenting and have never raised any children.

I don't force any sexuality on my child- I teach my child to judge people based upon how they treat others and how they treat themselves- and not to judge people based upon their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference.

My kid is turning out fine- and stay the hell away from our family you pervert.

You stated your children are repulsed by kissing. I must question your parenting if your children are repulsed by what you taught them, as you stated here in this thread.

Don't bring your family into the conversation if you get offended so easily.

 

[elektra]

Why would I be telling any of that to children?

Really what kind of sick monster are you- what kind of conversations do you have with children? Or are you even allowed around children?

When it comes to sex, you teach them what is appropriate for their age group, and base it upon what they want to know.

And most importantly- and always taught- is that sex is something special, and should only happen between two people who respect and care for each other.

And only a sick monster like yourself thinks that children need to be taught about every variation of sex that adults can dream up. Why you think that a 7 year old needs to know how Mommy likes to have Daddy's penis in her anus, or variations there of is beyond me.

Gay parents end up having the talk just like every other parent.

Kids don't want to know how their parents are having sex- no kid wants to here that.

Why would you teach man to man anal sex to your children? Because you have advocated that Children should be adopted into a lifestyle where they will learn that DAD AND DAD have ANAL SEX!

Yes, we can now all see you are nothing more than a hypocrite, forcing children to live in a homosexual lifestyle family is fine for others but when it comes to your children learning these details then you go off your rocker and call others perverts?

Why would teaching this be perverted? You advocate that its okay for a child to be adopted into a homosexual lifestyle where they will learn these details but to suggest that it be taught to your children is outrageous?

I was simply trolling to show all that you are a hypocrite, what is good for others is a perversion if taught to your kids.

You are a sick fuck, seriously

I am a sick monster for suggesting you teach your children what you think is okay for other children to live with?

Hypocrite!

 

[Syriusly]

It is clear you have no idea about parenting and have never raised any children.

I don't force any sexuality on my child- I teach my child to judge people based upon how they treat others and how they treat themselves- and not to judge people based upon their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference.

My kid is turning out fine- and stay the hell away from our family you pervert.

You stated your children are repulsed by kissing. I must question your parenting if your children are repulsed by what you taught them, as you stated here in this thread.

Don't bring your family into the conversation if you get offended so easily.

I don't have a problem discussing my family- we are doing great.

I pointed out that you clearly have never been around any children- and apparently don't even know any children.

You said that children would be repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual sex- and I pointed out- like every parent knows- and person who has been around children for those moments- is that children are repulsed by the mechanics of any sex, and most even find french kissing repulsive.

And they find the idea of their parents having sex really, really repulsive.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would I be telling any of that to children?

Really what kind of sick monster are you- what kind of conversations do you have with children? Or are you even allowed around children?

When it comes to sex, you teach them what is appropriate for their age group, and base it upon what they want to know.

And most importantly- and always taught- is that sex is something special, and should only happen between two people who respect and care for each other.

And only a sick monster like yourself thinks that children need to be taught about every variation of sex that adults can dream up. Why you think that a 7 year old needs to know how Mommy likes to have Daddy's penis in her anus, or variations there of is beyond me.

Gay parents end up having the talk just like every other parent.

Kids don't want to know how their parents are having sex- no kid wants to here that.

Why would you teach man to man anal sex to your children? Because you have advocated that Children should be adopted into a lifestyle where they will learn that DAD AND DAD have ANAL SEX!!

I am advocating that children be adopted by loving parents- some single parents, some married.

And what kind of sex those parents may- or may not- be having is none of those children's business.

Why the hell do you think it is the business of any children- adopted or otherwise to know how their parents are- or are not having sex?

 

[Syriusly]

Why would I be telling any of that to children?

Really what kind of sick monster are you- what kind of conversations do you have with children? Or are you even allowed around children?

When it comes to sex, you teach them what is appropriate for their age group, and base it upon what they want to know.

And most importantly- and always taught- is that sex is something special, and should only happen between two people who respect and care for each other.

And only a sick monster like yourself thinks that children need to be taught about every variation of sex that adults can dream up. Why you think that a 7 year old needs to know how Mommy likes to have Daddy's penis in her anus, or variations there of is beyond me.

Gay parents end up having the talk just like every other parent.

Kids don't want to know how their parents are having sex- no kid wants to here that.

Why would you teach man to man anal sex to your children? Because you have advocated that Children should be adopted into a lifestyle where they will learn that DAD AND DAD have ANAL SEX!

Yes, we can now all see you are nothing more than a hypocrite, forcing children to live in a homosexual lifestyle family is fine for others but when it comes to your children learning these details then you go off your rocker and call others perverts?

Why would teaching this be perverted? You advocate that its okay for a child to be adopted into a homosexual lifestyle where they will learn these details but to suggest that it be taught to your children is outrageous?

I was simply trolling to show all that you are a hypocrite, what is good for others is a perversion if taught to your kids.

You are a sick fuck, seriously

I am a sick monster for suggesting you teach your children what you think is okay for other children to live with?

Hypocrite!

You are sick fuck because you despise homosexuals.

You are a sick fuck because you think parenting is only about sex.

You are a sick fuck because you promoted bigotry and homophobia.

You are a sick fuck because you prefer that that children who have been abandoned by their parents live out their childhood in foster care rather than have a parent or parents that will provide them security and love.

 

[elektra]

I am advocating that children be adopted by loving parents- some single parents, some married.

And what kind of sex those parents may- or may not- be having is none of those children's business.

Why the hell do you think it is the business of any children- adopted or otherwise to know how their parents are- or are not having sex?

Now you are not only a hypocrite but extremely naive.

You do not think that children learn or are able to understand what is happening in their "homes"?

You do not think that as soon as the neighbor kids or the school kids learn that Tommy had two Dads that they will not at the least teach the kids what are happening.

And you make the claim I do not know children. Are you naive, ignorant, or simply a sick advocate.

 

[elektra]

Why would I be telling any of that to children?

Really what kind of sick monster are you- what kind of conversations do you have with children? Or are you even allowed around children?

When it comes to sex, you teach them what is appropriate for their age group, and base it upon what they want to know.

And most importantly- and always taught- is that sex is something special, and should only happen between two people who respect and care for each other.

And only a sick monster like yourself thinks that children need to be taught about every variation of sex that adults can dream up. Why you think that a 7 year old needs to know how Mommy likes to have Daddy's penis in her anus, or variations there of is beyond me.

Gay parents end up having the talk just like every other parent.

Kids don't want to know how their parents are having sex- no kid wants to here that.

Why would you teach man to man anal sex to your children? Because you have advocated that Children should be adopted into a lifestyle where they will learn that DAD AND DAD have ANAL SEX!

Yes, we can now all see you are nothing more than a hypocrite, forcing children to live in a homosexual lifestyle family is fine for others but when it comes to your children learning these details then you go off your rocker and call others perverts?

Why would teaching this be perverted? You advocate that its okay for a child to be adopted into a homosexual lifestyle where they will learn these details but to suggest that it be taught to your children is outrageous?

I was simply trolling to show all that you are a hypocrite, what is good for others is a perversion if taught to your kids.

You are a sick fuck, seriously

I am a sick monster for suggesting you teach your children what you think is okay for other children to live with?

Hypocrite!

You are sick fuck because you despise homosexuals.

You are a sick fuck because you think parenting is only about sex.

You are a sick fuck because you promoted bigotry and homophobia.

You are a sick fuck because you prefer that that children who have been abandoned by their parents live out their childhood in foster care rather than have a parent or parents that will provide them security and love.

How do you know I am not a homosexual? You think all homosexuals believe 4 year olds should have no choice?
Why would parenting and sex be sick at all? Any good parent will teach a child about sex, at least before they learn in a school yard.
Bigotry, you are the one who has stereotyped me, for all you know I am a homosexual against homosexual's adopting orphaned children.
Homophobia, hardly, admitting that sexuality is learned and taught, is not homophobic.

What I do understand is that children naturally want a mother and father, orphaned children should not be forced into a lifestyle that is not of their choosing.

You though, when I suggested that you teach to your children, what children in a homosexual family will be taught and learn, you got all bent out of shape like what was suggested is perversion.

You are a bigoted hypocrite, explain how you are not.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

You find that sad....but not apparently that there are thousands of children who have been abandoned by their biological parents who are waiting to be adopted?

Abandoned? Strawman argument. No children in Orphanages are "waiting" to be adopted by homosexuals.
.

What orphans in orphanages?

We are talking about adoption- and the vast majority of children available for adoption are children abandoned by their biological parents.

I have shown you the stats before and you clearly just don't give a damn about the children who spend years waiting to be adopted after their biological parents abandoned them

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Every child adopted- by either a heterosexual or homosexual- is a child that now has a family.

You don't want those children to have a family.

Don't you have a whole household of children you are currently ignoring, is it you who claims to have like 5 kids your raising. I would think they need your attention more than I.

I am an amazingly lucky man who happens to be married to a wonderful wife and whose fantastic daughter is busy cooking dinner for us right now.

Back to why you prefer to have 30,000 children spend 3 or more years in foster care rather than allow them to be adopted

I have shown you the stats before and you clearly just don't give a damn about the children who spend years waiting to be adopted after their biological parents abandoned them

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Every child adopted- by either a heterosexual or homosexual- is a child that now has a family.

You don't want those children to have a family.

So sorry, I confused you with another.

Forcing children into Homosexual's lifestyle is abuse. Pure and simple. That you are to ignorant to understand that, continues the abuse of children with who have no choice.

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

 

[Silhouette]

You are sick fuck because you despise homosexuals.

You are a sick fuck because you think parenting is only about sex.

You are a sick fuck because you promoted bigotry and homophobia.

You are a sick fuck because you prefer that that children who have been abandoned by their parents live out their childhood in foster care rather than have a parent or parents that will provide them security and love.

Such a weak and oppressed class the deviant are...so weak in the court systems too...poor innocent oppressed lifestylists..

Appropriate that someone checked your post as informative...pretty sure that someone using that type of intolerant spew shouldn't be parenting, or at least should not be able to dictate to states who should and shouldn't make up mother/father to children..

 

[James Everett]

The dictionary definition of marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman.

The dictionary actually disagrees with you on this:

Marriage:

1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established invarious parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognizedlegally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Marriage is what we agree it is.

A union of 2 people of the same sex is not a marriage.

Says you. Both the dictionary and the law of 37 of 50 States disagrees with you.

But hey, you continue to believe that the union of 2 people of the same sex is not a married. And gay people will keep getting married.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

First, according to Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition) a marriage is very simply defined as ....
"A contract between a man and a woman"
Therefore a man and a man nor a woman and a woman contracting between one another cannot be defined as a marriage under the proper definition of such.
What most seem to be attempting is to redefine words to make them fit that which they wish. Two men, or two women having sexual relations are quite simply defined as sodomites, there is no such word a homosexual, nor is being "Gay" defined as being a "Sodomite", such made up words, or misused definitions are used because using the proper definition seems to harsh, or may harm the tender sensibilities of those who practice such, but the truth is the truth, and facts are facts. Now, a marriage being simply "a contract between a man and a woman", there is no reason, (and it is a constitutional guarantee) under Art. I, Sect. 10, of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution that we hold the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else, therefore two men, or two women who wish to practice sodomy, and live and contract the same as a man and woman who are actually married, they have the constitutional guarantee to do so, and that contract is binding and enforceable, however such is NOT a marriage. A civil union would be the proper definition of such a contract as that between sodomites who wish to establish such as the equivalent of a marriage between themselves.
Now we come to the issue of rather or not each individual State retains the authority to prevent Sodomites from contracting such as that of the equivalent of a marriage between themselves without violating the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
We need look at this point to....
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.
As well as ....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.
Again the only real question is NOT that of whether or not sodomites may marry, but rather a State retains the jurisdiction to prevent Sodomites from contracting a civil union between themselves that is the equivalent of a marriage?
By definition there is no such thing as a marriage between two men or two women.
One thing for Sodomites to consider is that once they do form such contract, they then enter into UCC jurisdiction which opens up a can of worms that they may wish they had not opened.
Last: In my opinion, unless it can be proven that Sodomites contracting the equivalent of a marriage is in some way infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another, then a civil contract falls under their individual retained right under Art. I, Sect. 10 of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.

 

[Skylar]

You are sick fuck because you despise homosexuals.

You are a sick fuck because you think parenting is only about sex.

You are a sick fuck because you promoted bigotry and homophobia.

You are a sick fuck because you prefer that that children who have been abandoned by their parents live out their childhood in foster care rather than have a parent or parents that will provide them security and love.

Such a weak and oppressed class the deviant are...so weak in the court systems too...poor innocent oppressed lifestylists..

Appropriate that someone checked your post as informative...pretty sure that someone using that type of intolerant spew shouldn't be parenting, or at least should not be able to dictate to states who should and shouldn't make up mother/father to children..

Then explain how denying marriage to same sex parents helps their children? Because the courts have already outlined all the immediately legal harm your proposal inflicts upon children. So what's the benefit to them in denying their parents marriage to balance it out?

.......nothing.

Your proposal hurts children. It humiliates children. It robs them of financial stability, damages their sense of family, impairs their access to healthcare. And doesn't help them. But you're more than willing, even eager to hurt these children by the 10s of thousands..... if it lets you hurt gays.

That's rather despicable.

 

[Skylar]

First, according to Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755 edition) a marriage is very simply defined as ....
"A contract between a man and a woman"

And according to the dictionary today it is;

Marriage:

1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established invarious parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognizedlegally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Marriage is our invention. It is whatever we say it is. We say it includes same sex couples. And our assessment is as authoritative in our era as the assessment of those in the past was in theirs.

In 37 of 50 States, marriage includes same sex couples. With that number likely to increase to 50 of 50 in June. Progress is a wonderful thing.

Now we come to the issue of rather or not each individual State retains the authority to prevent Sodomites from contracting such as that of the equivalent of a marriage between themselves without violating the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?

The basis of the challenges to gay marriage bans being heard by the court is the 14th amendment. Which didn't exist in the 1787/1788 constitution. Nor did it exist at the time of the Miln ruling in 1837. Making your point of reference about 30 to 80 years off.

You can ignore the 14th amendment, ignore the way it fundamentally changed the relationship between the federal government and the states as it pertains to the violation of rights. But you can't make the courts ignore it.