Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[jillian]

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.

No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming.

 

[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?

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.

What attack on marriage?

Polygamy has been in existence as MARRIAGE for a long, long time. It's still practiced in the USA (though not legally) and other countries in the world.

Is it an attack on morality or on YOUR MORALITY? Should we all have your morality?

The Supreme Court denied this would happen? When?

 

[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?

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

Except of course that they did. Remember, I know the *actual* list of States that ratified the 14th. Not your 'Dear God, I really hope they haven't checked this shit' list.

Spoiler alert: I checked.

 

[Skylar]

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?

The Supreme Court in comparison to what? You?

It doesn't take religion. It just take a rational assessment of who would be a better, more knowledgeable and informed source.

Its not you, Packy.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Yeah, you're really not bringing your A game tonight, are you?

"In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.

Kids aren't a requirement for marriage. Nor a requirement for the right to marry. As the Obergefell court made quite clear yet again in the same ruling:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

"The right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Both of which you either knew, or should have. Try again, JV.

 

[Packyderm]

"No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"

Things Jillian says...

 

[Packyderm]

"It's time to allow unlimited immigration, leave marriage in the past and stop your white micro aggression. What? Why yes...I am Jewish. Why do you ask?"
Other things Jillian has said

 

[Skylar]

"No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"

Things Jillian says...

"The right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Things the Supreme Court says.....

 

[Syriusly]

"No one is attacking marriage. Your hysteria is underwhelming"

Things Jillian says...

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years. My marriage is not threatened because other people can get married.

How it can be an attack on marriage to encourage couples to marry- I really don't understand.

 

[Tennyson]

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'.

You have found a good place here that suits your skill-set. You can be the tallest midget by default. Why anyone would want to roll around in the sewer with you is beyond me. Your “debate” style is based on an unprecedented ignorance of history and law topped off with the default of one who lacks a formal or autodidactic education on the subject, thus rendering you with nothing but churlish, uncivilized, and barbaric Tourettes-like keyboard outbursts to mask your deficiencies. Good luck with maintaining your tallest midget podium here.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Good luck with your Google law and history degree. It will open so many doors for you. And the chip on your shoulder that screams lack of a formal education or knowledge of the subject will open even more doors. I anticipate reading you next law review: Out of Contest Quotes and Google Supersedes all Known Legal Scholarship.

 

[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.

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

Perhaps you and Skyler can co-author a book or law review with your combined Google searches. Good luck and I hope to read it.

 

[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.

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

 

[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.

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming. I never said the Fourteenth Amendment was used for Dredd Scott. My argument was upheld by the courts until the twentieth century and the reconstruction Congress. Nice dodge on the rest of my post.

 

[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.

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.

Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


"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

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.

 

[Tennyson]

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.

Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


"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

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You do have a pretty strong augment if the 39th Congress consisted of only Howard and the re-defining of the term "personal right,” ignore the rest of the members of the Senate, ignore the debates, ignore the re-writing of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect federalism and state’s rights, and that the 39th Congress inserted a super encrypted meaning that would take a decoder ring and a Supreme Court in the twentieth century with the gift of Divine Interpretation and use of the decoder ring to understand the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.

Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


"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

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.

Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.

And you ignore him. Insisting you know better.

Um, no. You don't.

Remember this little gem?

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.

"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


So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.

And not you.

 

[Tennyson]

I see that your “debating” style is from the philistine school of inadequacy and hate just as is Skyler’s.

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The doctrine of substantive due process was not used in the last half of the nineteenth century, and it was not used in the Slaughter-House Cases. The due process clause was used fifteen times in the Slaughter-House Cases and each time it was used as procedural due process. It was not used in the Dredd Scott ruling, and it was not used in the nineteenth century. It was used in the early twentieth century as an economic liberty or private contract rights doctrine starting with the Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905). It was used aggressively in the 1930s to shut down FDR’s New Deal.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.

Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


"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

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.

Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.

And you ignore him. Insisting you know better.

Um, no. You don't.

Remember this little gem?

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.

"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


So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.

And not you.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate. The debate instantly focused on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was a slap in the face of Howard, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 dealt with the Black Codes and only the freed slaves. The debates and the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment were to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 enforceable. The entire debates centered on the freed slaves and criminal codes.

If you were ever to venture outside the out of context quotes you found on some random left-wing blog, you would know that the “personal right” mentioned in Howard’s speech precluded the Bill of Rights. You would also know that Howard stated in 1870 that the Fourteenth Amendment had no authority to force the state of Mississippi to be bound by any of the amendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Skylar]

Hate? Dial back the melodrama, Sally. Nobody 'hates' you. You're just wrong. As I've demonstrated with quotes from the Supreme Court, Howard and Bingham.

The 14th amendment was clearly intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As Howard and Bingham both affirmed clearly and unambiguously.

The USSC ignored that intent in the Slaughter House cases....generally considered one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. And for about 30 years, the courts followed the precedent of the Slaughter House court.

Then, around the turn of the century the court began interpreting the 14th as applhying the bill of Rights to the States.......exactly as Howard and Bingham, the two primary proponents of the Amendment, intended. With the courts interpreting in that manner since.

We've had about 120 years of the courts following the application intended by the primary proponents. And 30 years where the courts ignored that intent. And you're arguing for the 30 years and against the original intent of the writers.

Um, no.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed until the late 1860s, the Dredd Scott decision in the late 1850s. Its physically impossible for the 14th amendment to have been applied to the Dredd Scott decision. Or any decision before 1868.

Well, without a delorean or a blue police box. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by more than a decade.

There's a reason why your argument is rejected by our nation and more than a century of precedent.

Ignorant remarks are are not very becoming.

Says the guy who insists that the applying the Bill of Rights to the States was never the intent of the 14th amendment:


"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

This the man who introduced the 14th amendment to the Senate.....introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate.

And just *destroying* your absurdly ignorant nonsense about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Of course it was. Not only apply it, but compel the States to respect it.

With the Slaughter House cases ignoring the obvious intent of the 14th in what is generally regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nations history. And the the Supreme Court again adopting the intent of the 14th around the turn of the 20th century.

With the courts following that intent for the last 120 years. While ignoring it for only 30.

No thank you.

Regarding substance, you have produced Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not part of the debate and was ignored by the rest of the Senate.

Nonsense. His introduction IS part of the debate. He explains, without the slightest ambiguity, what the purpose of the 14th is for, what it is intended to do, and why we need it.

And you ignore him. Insisting you know better.

Um, no. You don't.

Remember this little gem?

No one in the 39th Congress said that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights.

The entire Howard quote I just offered you....was from the 39th congress.

"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


So you ignored it, pretending it doesn't exist.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why the Courts have followed the counsel of Bingham and Howard for the last 120 years on the meaning of the 14th amendment.

And not you.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.

And you just blinked. 'Out of context' is your go to for any quote that obliterates your claims. Its your tell. Your submission and acknowledgement that you've got jack shit to refute my claims, quotes or arguments.

You insisted that no one argued that the 14th amendment
BIll of Rights was to be applied to the States in the 39th congress. I cited Senator Howard making that *explicit* argument introducing the 14th amendment making the very argument you insist no one ever made.

You have presented nothing refuting any part of Howard's argument before Congress. You have presented nothing establishing that Howard's advocacy of the 14th amendment as being meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States was 'out of context'.

You've cited nothing, presented nothing, refuted nothing. Worse, you've been proven irrefutably inaccurate in your claims regarding the 14th amendment and the 39th congress.

And Howard's introduction of the 14th amendment remain uncontested, unrefuted, and unassailed:

"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


You ignore Howard. You ignored Bingham. You ignored the express purpose of the 14th amendment.

For the last 120 years....the court hasn't. Your entire argument is to ignore the primary proponents and writers of the 14th amendment and ignore the Supreme Court, insisting you know better.

Laughing....no, you don't.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

 

[Tennyson]

Oh, and another grand passage from Bingham in introducing the 14th to the House for you to straight up ignore and flee, insisting its 'out of context'.

"Sir, it has been the want of the Republican that there was not an express grant of power in the Constitution to enable the whole people of every State, by congressional enactment, to enforce obedience to these requirements of the Constitution. Nothing can be plainer to the thoughtful men than that if the grant of power had been originally conferred upon the Congress of the nation, and legislation had been upon your statute-books to enforce these requirements of the Constitution in every State, that rebellion, which had scarred and blasted the land, would have been an impossibility.....

.....And sire it is equally clear by every construction of the Constitution, its contemporaneous construction, its continued construction, legislative, executive, and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, sir, the country knows, the civilized world knows, that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of Eleven States within the Union within the last five years, in utter disregard of these injunctions of your Constitution, in utter disregard of that official oath which the Constitution required they should severally take and faithfully keep which they entered up the discharge of their respective duties, have violated in every sense the word these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of which are absolutely essential to American nationality.
By order, then, of the committee, sir, and for the purpose of giving the whole people care in future of the unity of the Government which constitutions us one people, and without which American nationality would cease to be, I propose the adoption of this amendment to the House, and through the House, I press it upon the consideration of the loyal people of those whole country.

Rep. John Bingham
February 26th, 1866
39th Congress

But Bingham didn't intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the States with the 14th?

And when you offer your inevitably rout of 'out of context', remember of course that you have presented *jack shit* in defense of your argument. Not a single citation of anyone involved. You've merely cited yourself, insisting that you know better than Bingham, Howard, and the Supreme Court.

And of course, you know what you've presented: Jack shit.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship. The concepts of whole-system thinking, hermeneutics, the principle of compositionality, and ontology, which are essential to understanding history, are eschewed by you for a good reason: they undermine your entire worldview.