Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

Its been addressed. Repeatedly....and you straight up ignored it. Just like you ignored the Federalist Papers, just like you ignored Bingham. Just like you ignored Howard. Just like you ignored the Obergefell decision.

You do realize that the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes, right?

I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.

Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.

And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.

For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.

Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.

Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right because you say so.

And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.

What is a "law brief?"

What is 'jenjune rhetoric'?

And remember of course that the entire basis of your argment is that the Supreme Court is wrong and you must be right, because you say so.

So, um....how's that working out for you? Obergefell has surely already been overturned by your 'uh-uh' school of rhetorical argument. Surely it has.

 

[Tennyson]

I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.

You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.

[quote
The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.

The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.

The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.

Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.

Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30. Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1.

Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

You lose utterly. Twice. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.

If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.

Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.

The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.

Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.

The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.

You lose again. Twice.

I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and Howard at your disposal.

Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Good luck with all that when you write your next law

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.

review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.

Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.

The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.

No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.

This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.

Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of those who have written the 14th amendment.

Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's New Deal.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.

All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.

For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you still insist it never happened.

Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.

Anytime you want to provide evidence that substantive due process existed before the 1930s, just post it.

 

[Tennyson]

I do have a bad habit of ignoring a single out of context quote that is being used as representative of an entire generation and thousands of other documents. That is a bad habit I need to work on.

Laughing......you insist that anything that contradicts you is 'out of context'. But you can't offer us any evidence to demonstrate it is so.

And given that the judiciary is and has always been the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, historical precedent is so on my side. While your imagination is, like your entire argument, gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.

But tell us again how the Supreme Court is wrong....and you must be right, because you say so. Or babble about 'jenjune' rhetoric.

For goodness sake, fella.....if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure to spell the insult correctly.

Be sure to alert me when you write your next brief or law review on this subject. I anticipate reading them.

Be sure to give me a giggle when your next law brief is predicated on the idea that the Supreme Court is wrong and you're right because you say so.

And make sure its filled with all the 'jenjune' rhetoric you can muster.

What is a "law brief?"

What is 'jenjune rhetoric'?

And remember of course that the entire basis of your argment is that the Supreme Court is wrong and you must be right, because you say so.

So, um....how's that working out for you? Obergefell has surely already been overturned by your 'uh-uh' school of rhetorical argument. Surely it has.

Is there a definition of a "law brief" in there?

 

[Skylar]

The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.

The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.

Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.

Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30. Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1.

Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

You lose utterly. Twice. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.

Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.

The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.

Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.

The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.

You lose again. Twice.

I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and Howard at your disposal.

Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Good luck with all that when you write your next law

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.

review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.

Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.

The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.

No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.

This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.

Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of those who have written the 14th amendment.

Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's New Deal.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.

All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.

For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you still insist it never happened.

Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.

Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate


And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:

"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

-John Bingham
Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Tennyson]

The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.

Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.

The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.

You lose again. Twice.

I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and Howard at your disposal.

Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Good luck with all that when you write your next law

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.

review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.

Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.

The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.

No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.

This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.

Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of those who have written the 14th amendment.

Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's New Deal.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.

All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.

For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you still insist it never happened.

Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.

Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate


And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:

"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

-John Bingham
Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.

Get used to the idea.

Single out of context quotes that contradict the body of statements by Howard and Bingham are not an argument. You do not have an argument until yon can provide evidence of substantive due process before the 1930s.

 

[Skylar]

Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.

Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.

You lose again. Twice.

Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.

Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.

The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.

No, they didn't. The Slaughterhouse cases found that the 14th amendment didn't extend the rights protected in the BIll of Rights to the States. But instead only protected rights like 'the right to travel between states' or 'navigate on rivers'.

This despite the purpose of the 14th amendment described *repeatedly* as being the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With Howard reading the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the states when he introduced the 14th to the Senate.

Again, Tenny.......you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And for the last 115 years or so, the judiciary has aligned their intepretation with the intent of those who have written the 14th amendment.

Compared to the less than 30 years where they ignored the intent of the 14th.

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's New Deal.

You have yet to provide any evidence for your entire argument, merely asserting it must be so. I on the other hand have quoted the Federalist Papers, the 14th amendment, and the Obergefell ruling.

All contradicting you. While you have nothing to back your assertions but your ability to type.

For crying out loud, I cited the Obergefell case *explicitly* citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment as a basis for their ruling.....and you still insist it never happened.

Factually establish your claims first. As so far, your only contribution to this discussion has been desperate, willful ignorance.

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. Case after case made that as did the actions of congress.

Horseshit. Not only did Howard argue that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, he read those rights out, one at a time.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate


And Howard was hardly alone. John Bingham made a similar argument when introducing the Amendment to the House:

"The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

-John Bingham
Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

All of which you know, Tenny. But you really hope we don't. Ignore as you wish. It won't matter either way. As the judiciary is still the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution, exactly as the founders intended. And the 14th amendment still applies to the States, exactly as the primary proponents of the 14th amendment intended.

Get used to the idea.

Single out of context quotes that contradict the body of statements by Howard and Bingham are not an argument. You do not have an argument until yon can provide evidence of substantive due process before the 1930s.

And by 'single out of context quote', you mean Senator Howard doing EXACTLY what you insisted that no one in the 39th congress ever did?

Laughing....and exactly as I said you would, you ignored Howard, despite the Senator reading the rights of the Bill of Rights one at a time at what was intended to be applied to the States.

Just like you ignored Bingham, just like you ignored Obergefell, just like you ignored the 14th amendment, just like you ignored the Slaughterhouse cases, just like you ignored the Federalist Papers.

You're nothing if not predictably irrelevant Tenny. Really, is there anything more to you than willful ignorance? As so far, its your only contribution to this discussion.

Well that and laughably references to 'jenjune'.

 

[Skylar]

Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:


They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866

But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?

Laughing....really?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

With your own quote of the Federalist Papers reaffirming the same point: that the judiciary should put the constitution above legislative statutes that violate it.

You say differently. You're nobody. Hamilton wins.

[quote
The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.

The 14th amendment wasn't even ratified until nearly 1870. So your reference to the '19th century' and the 14th amendment is already nearly 70% irrelevant.

The courts ignored the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment from the 1870s to the 1890s. From about 1900 until the present day, they recognized the purpose of the 14th amendment as being the application of the bill of rights to the States.

Which is *exactly* what Bingham and Howard said it was to do.

Judicial precedent affirming the 14th amendment's application to the States has existed for about 115 years. It was rejected for about 30. Meaning that the weight of judicial precedent affirms the current interpretation by a ratio of about 4 to 1.

Worse for you, the current interpretation is aligned with the intent of the writers of the 14th, which was clearly to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

You lose utterly. Twice. There's a reason your interpretations are legally irrelevant and have no bearing on the outcome of Obergefell or any other case the court is hearing.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.

If it was as easy as you claim, you'd have done it. You already tried....and failed comically. As we both know my conclusions are in context and accurately conveyed.

Try again. Remembering of course that I have the rulings, Papers, Bingham and Howard quotes right here that contradict your fallacious paraphrases and vague allusions o 'being out of context'.

The Fourteenth Amendment started in 1866 and was ratified in 1868.

Which might explain why the courts didn't apply the 14th amendment BEFORE 1868....or during the overwhelming majority of the 19th century.

They applied an interpretation that ignored Bingham and Howard for about 30 years. Then, starting in around 1900, began applying the amendment in a manner consistent with its intent: to Apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And have done so ever since, for the last 115 years or so. The weight of precedent contradicting out out strips what you think supports you by a factor of nearly 4 to 1.

With the court's current interpretation inline with the intent of the primary proponents of the 14th amendment: the application of Bill of Rights to the States.

The courts did not ignore anything. The courts used the intent and they use procedural due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sure they did. They argued, straight out, that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. When Bingham and Howard made it ludicrously clear that that was exactly what the 14th amendment was designed to do.

For crying out loud, Howard actually took the time to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th was intended to apply to the States when he introduced the amendment to the Senate.

It wasn't until 1900 that the courts returned to what the primary proponents of the 14th amendment obviously intended. And we've been there ever since.

30 years......to 115 years. With the 115 years matching the intent of the amendment.

You lose again. Twice.

I am sure you do have every out of context quote by Bingham and Howard at your disposal.

Laughing...anything that contradicts you you insist is 'out of context'. Despite you being laughably unable to establish any other context than the one I presented.

You're alluding to an argument you can't factually support. While ignoring the evidence that explicitly contradicts you. Like say, Federalist Paper 78.....which makes it ludicriously clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the meaning of the constitution and place the constitution above legislative acts that violate it.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Good luck with all that when you write your next law

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't make the Federalist Papers disappear. Or Obergefell, Bingham, Howard, of the 14th amendment magically change.

review or write your next appellate brief. And be sure to use that unsophisticated and jenjune rhetoric of yours, it will alert the court or review that you have superior knowledge of the Constitution. They look for things such as that.

Laughing....um, slick? My interpretations ARE the court's interpretations. As Obegefell makes ludicriously clear:

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Make sure to include that in your next appellant brief. I'm sure the judges will get a good belly laugh. And please, misspell 'jejune' again when you do it. Its like frosting on your fail cake.

The courts applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it was intended and the reconstruction congress created laws and approved the state's constitutions based on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment that contradicts your version.

Anytime you want to provide me with any evidence that substantive due process existed in the nineteenth century to support the Supreme Court ruling, go ahead and do that. Other than that, all that you have is the Supreme Court in the early to mid 1930s creating substantive due process to rule against FDR's New Deal.

Wrong.

The doctrine of substantive due process dates back to the last half of the 19th Century (see e.g. Slaughter-House Cases (1873)).

The notion that substantive due process was "created" during the 1930s is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

Your entire premise revolves around an out of context quote by Hamilton in a document about the separation of powers regarding the federal judiciary vis-a-vis the legislative branch.

Hamilton explicitly and unambiguously cited the judiciary as the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

You insist that the judiciary is not the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

Hamilton trumps you every time. As the judiciary has both the authority and the duty to place the constitution above legislative acts that violate them. Says who?

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

And yet you *still* insist that the Judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution and can't put the constitution above laws that violate it.

Um, yeah, they can. Yeah, they do.

The concept you are presenting regarding same-sex marriage and the states was not a concept in the federalist papers, was not a concept in the founding era, nor was it a concept in 1866. The entire concept was created in 2015 by a Supreme Court with no constitutional basis.

The basis of the the Obergefell (contrary to your stunning ignorance on the ruling) was the 14th amendment. An amendment that didn't exist in the founding era.

Amendments (contrary to your stunning ignorance on amendments) change the constitution. And it is to the constitution that the judiciary has an obligation to uphold.

Which they did in the Obergefell ruling, placing the rights of people above state laws that violate those rights.

You seem to have a predilection for lowering an exchange to gutter level exchanges. I do not play that game as I have yet to encounter anyone with that strategy to have the intellectual or educational background to advance any discussion on a higher plane than that.

By what? Accurately quoting the Federalist Papers, Howard, Bingham, and the Obergefell ruling?

For crying out loud, you argued with a straight face that an amendment to the constitution *doesn't* change the constitution.

Obergefell v. Hodges not use the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell used substantive due process and substantive due process did not exist until the twentieth century. The due process clause and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were both functions of the law within the judicial process and had nothing to do with rights. Just because Kennedy said that he used substantive due process from the Fourteenth Amendment does not make it so and it cannot be so because it did not exist.

That's what you say. This is what the Obergefell ruling says, explicitly citing the due process clause of the 14th amendment:

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

Its right there in black and white. And you close your eyes, pretend it doesn't exist....and then insist that because you pretend, the ruling magically changes to match.

Um, no. It doesn't. You're quite simply wrong. As the Obergefell makes ludicriously clear.

I don't know what to tell you or anyone else whose entire premise is based on and out of context quote by Hamilton in a document written for the state of New York. Federalist No. 78 only regarded the seperation of powers in the context of the congress of the United States.

The substantive due process did not exist in the 19th century and the Bill of Rights were not incorporated with the Fourteenth Amendment and it was twentieth century activist courts that created the concept.

Anyone can draw any conclusion they want it they start with a premise, go to Google, and work backwards to find an out of context quote to support their worldview.

It is right there- Obergefell- Due Process- 14th Amendment.

Obergefell v. Hodges said:

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

You can of course pretend whatever you want- but the Obergefell was based upon the 14th Amendment- and because of Obergefell- Americans can marry whoever they want- including the same gender.

And by the way-this was exactly the same reasoning used for Loving v. Virginia.

You are a few decades late to the issue.

You have yet to address the use of substantive due process that did not exist in the 19th century. To keep referencing the same substantive due process clause that did not exist isn't an argument and neither is bringing up Loving. Your only argument is to demonstrate that substantive due prices was a legal concept in the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified.

Why should I discuss your strawmen?

Obergefell is based upon the 14th Amendment- as is Loving v. Virginia.

My argument is that the court was right in Obergefell and was right 50 years ago in Loving.

And Americans regardless of their race or gender can marry each other because of Obergefell and Loving.

I understand that. Now all you have to do to substantiate that is to provide the evidence that substantive due process existed in 1868 and that should put an end to it.[/QUOTE]

No- I don't have to dance with your straw men at all.

The Supreme Court enforced our Constitution.
Obergefell and Loving both enforced the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Americans who couldn't legally before can legally marry now.

Life is good for those who believe in the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

What is constitutional about stopping a man from marrying two women ?

 

[Packyderm]

Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.

 

[Packyderm]

Not Wyoming.

"Montana polygamist, Nathan Collier, has applied for a marriage license with his second “wife.” If “marriage equality” is now the law of the land, does that mean people have a right to multiple wives or husbands (at the same time)? Collier thinks the principle of marriage equality ought to apply to him and his wives. He has asked for a second, concurrent marriage license. The county lawyer promised him a thoughtful answer to this request"
Is Three Still a Crowd? Polygamy and the Law After Obergefell v. Hodges

As you can see from the article the Supreme Court already banned polygamy in Reynolds vs US. Thats ok The caprice of that oligarchy can be breathtaking. They have also ruled (1) marriage is the exclusive province of the states and (2) sodomy bis a crime before reversing and attacking those same laws. Wouldnt be much of a stretch to discover in the Constitution a right to polygamy.
Capriciousness is a sign and trait of despotism.

 

[Packyderm]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

apparently, it is.

hint: marriage is a fundamental right. two consenting adults cannot be denied that right absent a compelling governmental interest. your bigotry is not a compelling governmental interest.

thanks.

now read:

{{meta.pageTitle}}

p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.

Two consenting adults? You bigot. Who gives you the right to limit marriage to two?

 

[Packyderm]

p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.

Not what your Supreme Court of the Known Universe said in that travesty Obergefell V Hodges

"Third, marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
Justice Kennedy in the Majority..Obergefell vs Hodges

Have you ever not been wrong?

 

[Packyderm]

Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:


They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866

But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?

Laughing....really?

And you wonder why the House, Senate and the States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment?

 

[Packyderm]

But you insist that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right?

Imagine the nerve!

Sheesh is there any religious fanatic as bad as a mind numbed liberal?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.

What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Want more? Because Howard and Bingham were clear as a bell on what they intended:


They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

-Senator Jacob Howard, 39th Congress, 1866

But the purpose of the 14th *wasn't* to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? To provide the federal government with the power to compel the States to respect those fundamental guarantees?

Laughing....really?

And you wonder why the House, Senate and the States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment?

Yeah, who'd want to be forced to respect human rights? I mean, seriously, if anyone gets power, they want to be able to fuck everyone over

 

[Packyderm]

Lets see what kind of answer you get Sun Devil. The polygamists have already filed suit in Utah and, I believe, Wyoming. Will have to wait until it wends its way through the courts for the Justices to find a right to marry three women, five boys and a donkey in the founding documents.

What's wrong with polygamy? If you choose to live that lifestyle, why should the govt tell you not to?

Exhibit A above. The attack on marriage, the family, society and morality must necessarily go through phases each building on the other. The Supreme Court denied this would happen. But it will.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

p.s. marriage has zero to do with procreation or there would be a test to make sure no one who could not have a child or would choose not to have a child would get married. now be quiet.

Not what your Supreme Court of the Known Universe said in that travesty Obergefell V Hodges

"Third, marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”
Justice Kennedy in the Majority..Obergefell vs Hodges

Have you ever not been wrong?

The failed, ridiculous ‘argument’ made by those hostile to gay Americans was that the intent of marriage is procreation, and because same-sex couples can’t procreate, denying them access to marriage law was ‘justified.’

Of course this ‘reasoning’ is idiocy, as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older opposite-sex couples no longer able to have children are not compelled by the state to divorce.

Consequent, the state cannot use the ability to procreate as a ‘prerequisite’ to enter into marriage contracts, seeking to do so is inconsistent and devoid of merit.