Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

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

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You are boring. Primarily because all of your examples, be they children, different races, arranged, forced marriage, subservient or anything else, were always unions of the opposite sex.

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You're are correct, marriage is what we define it to be, and until the USSC decided differently, it was always defined as some type of union between members of the opposite sex. Ugh....you are like debating with a brick wall, unable to hear, only resist.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

 

[Tennyson]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

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

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

 

[Skylar]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

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

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

 

[Skylar]

I just don't accept your fallacy of 'unchanging marriage' as having any legal or historical validity. As marriage has been different all over the place. Your claim that marriage is immutable and unchanging is provably false.

And now you're merely cherry picking your favorite characteristic......and insisting that that can't change. Why not?

You have no rationale behind your reasoning. You have no reason for your arbitrary standards to exist. And that's the beating heart of the failure of your argument. You're literally arguing that arbitrary discrimination should exist......because it *has* existed.

Which is meaningless nonsense. No, it shouldn't. You need a *reason* for it to exist. And you have none.

You say that as if the USSC isn't us. They're delegated the people's authority to rule on any matter that arises under the constitution. And they couldn't find a valid reason to deny same sex couples marriage either.

You're stuck in a silly Appeal to Authority fallacy without even a *reason* why the discrimination you cling to should even exist.

Which is why you failed.

Oh, and I hear you. Your argument is simply garbage; strung together fallacies of logic that even you can establish as having a rational reason. Why would I accept such shit reasoning as anything other than, well.....shit?

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Sorry, to bored to respond

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

 

[Skylar]

I'll simplify this for you so its not 'to' difficult:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage? We've already demonstrated that marriage is ludicrously malleable and has been changed repeatedly through history. So an argument that marriage can't change is provably false.

Unless you can provide us with a rational reason for the restriction to exist......then you're just offering us a tired Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Sure, whatever. Marriage can be 6 birds walking into a bar and playing darts with hand grenades. Works for me. It's whatever you want it to be.

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

 

[Tennyson]

You are not running from my post.

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:

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

And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

 

[Skylar]

Your post was already systematically eviscerated. Worse, your post is just you citing you. And you're either a liar or an incompetent. As demonstrated here:


And you knew damn well that that's not true. Or should have.

Meanwhile, I've shown you three direct citations of the Congressional record demonstrating that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. You've presented jack shit backing your claims.....only citing yourself.

And you citing you is meaningless gibberish. As you're either a liar or an incompetent.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

 

[Skylar]

That's not an answer to my question:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

Its obvious you have no reason. And that's why you fail.

What rational reason do you have for restriction on different species participation in marriage? Why can't a guy marry a horse, or 3 men marry 2 women and a goat. Hey, it's all about love. Let anybody marry anything. Fine with me.

The lack of capacity for consent. Animals can't offer it. People can.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine:

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

.....or you could just save yourself time and admit what we both already know:

There is no rational reason.

None, all people can marry whoever and as many people as they want. 1 guy can marry 3 women and 2 guys, and those 3 women can marry each other. There should be zero "discrimination" towards any person when it comes to marriage. I used to believe that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, but you have convinced me it is a union between any person with any other person, or any persons with any other persons. Thanks for being so persistent and helping me understand. You're the greatest!

You still haven't answered my question. You're just running from it.

What rational reason do you have for the restriction on genders of participants in marriage?

You obviously have no rational reason. And you're in excellent company. The Supreme Court couldn't find one either.

Which is exactly my point.

I just conceded that there should be no restriction on any person or persons when it comes to marriage. Anybody can marry whomever they want and as many as they want. There is no rational reason to put any restriction on marriage, because you have shown the definition of marriage is simple a union of people. Again, thanks for your excellent insight.

No, you threw a rhetorical tantrum, bringing in goats and polygamy. I've asked you specifically what the rational justification for restrictions on gender in marriage.

And you have none, as there are none. There's no rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry. Given that the right to marry is long recognized by the court, there needs to be a valid justification for withholding that right from same sex couples.

And the Court couldn't find any. Just as you couldn't find any. Which is exactly my point.

 

[Tennyson]

Here you go again. Your out of context quotes are addressed in my post. To understand that, you need to understand a certain clause in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

 

[Skylar]

Prove they are out of context. You've presented no evidence, no citation, nothing. You've only cited yourself. And I've demonstrated with your own words that either you don't know what you're talking about.....or you're lying.

Prove your argument with evidence. Prove that the my quotes are out of context. Prove that the Senate ignored Howard. Prove that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I've provided 3 quotes directly from the Congressional Record backing my claims and explicitly contradicting yours.

You've presented nothing. Show me, don't tell me. As you're going against 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right....and the Supreme Court is wrong.

And you've failed miserably.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

 

[Tennyson]

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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.

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

 

[Skylar]

Still not a single quote of anyone but yourself. And you've already demonstrated that you're utterly unreliable. You're gotta need to do some research, son. Just like I did.

PROVE my 3 citations from the Congressional Record were taken 'out of context'. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the Senate ignored Howard. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

PROVE that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of the RIghts to the States. With actual evidence, actual quotes. Not just you citing yourself again.

I've got 3 explicit citations from the folks introducing the 14th to the 39th congress explicitly contradicting you. I've got 120 years of legal precedent, backed by the Supreme Court.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that Howard, Bingham, the Supreme Court and 120 years of legal precedent are all wrong, and that you must be right.

Start crackin'. This time with evidence.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

 

[Tennyson]

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

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.

 

[Skylar]

I'm asking you to provide evidence to prove your assertions. Just as I did when I cited Howard and Bingham explicitly affirming that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And you've still got jack shit.

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

 

[Tennyson]

You are asking for quotes and discussions that did not take place. Genius. It is also genius how you are avoiding my post.

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

You insist that my quotes were taken out of context. Prove it.

You insist that Howard was ignored by the Senate. Prove it.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Prove it.

That you can't isn't my problem, its yours. As with 120 years of precedent, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Supreme Court is wrong, and you're right.

And you can't.

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

 

[Tennyson]

I have. The answer is in my post you have avoided. Here it is again. Pay special attention to the last paragraph and you can understand why no one takes a couple of statements by a couple of men that they both later qualified seriously. You want to make the argument that the only thing that matters are a couple of out of context quotes and disregard the entirety of the Senate debates and completly dismiss the House debates.

Here is the short version again regarding your out is context quotes, which you have aggressively avoided. And for the record, there is no 120 years of precedent.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it along with their statements regarding the Fourteenth Amendment was limited to the freed slaves only, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the privileges and immunity clause of the Constitution.

You have offered Howard’s introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What you have not done is explain why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment and why he was ignored.

What you have not done is explain why the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was never part of the debates.

What you have not done is reconcile your out of context statements with the Senate re-writing the amendment several times so that it could not be interpreted to infringe on federalism and state’s rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard referred to Corfield v. Coryell in the limited context of privileges and immunities regarding personal rights, which would eliminate the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why Howard and Bingham later stated that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to only constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 only to the freed slaves, and nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was connected to the Bill of Rights.

What you have not done is explain why not only did the incorporation of the Bill of Rights not come up again in the debates in the Senate, but there was no a single reference to the Bill of Rights being incorporated when the amendment was introduced to the House.

What you have are a couple of out of context quotes that were dismissed by the Senate and the House. You believe that your out of context quotes trump every other congressman and the entirety of the debates and ratification.

Again, this is why you have failed and will always fail:

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

No, you've made allegations.You haven't backed them up with....anything. Just you claiming it must be so.

And you're the same useless source that insisted no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

A *wildly* inaccurate claim, as both Howard and Bingham who introduced the amendment to the Senate and House respectively, did exactly that. Proving yourself a uselessly unreliable source.

You insist that my statements are out of context. Well, prove it. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're uselessly unreliable.

You insisted that HOward was ignored by the Senate. Well, prove that too. You citing yourself proves nothing, as you're laughably unreliable.

You insist that the 14th amendment wasn't meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Show us, don't tell us. And you 'saying' it must be so is meaningless jibber jabber. Show us the Congressional Record where this is established.

You can't. And you know you can't. Which is why you only quote yourself.

While I've quoted the Congressional Record and the USSC explicitly contradicting you. I have the evidence. You've got jack shit.

All you have done so far is avoid my post, which answers all of your questions. Just in case you so not know how the study of history is conducted, here it is again:

Your entire post is merely assertion....that you have backed with absolutely nothing. That's the Begging the Question fallacy.

Prove your claims are right with evidence. And you citing yourself isn't evidence. As you've already demonstrated with *wildly* inaccurate claims that you are uselessly unreliable.

Show us. Don't tell us.

If you're unclear by what I mean by 'evidence', take a look at the quotes from the Congressional Record that I offered you where Bingham and Howard both affirmed that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. That's evidence.

You citing yourself? That's an excuse.

Avoiding my post only diminished your credibility.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, I preponderant, a concept you are avoiding as well. An out of context quote here and a snippet there is not evidence. I have not yet taken you down the direct connection between the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation as you have to yet to address my posts. Your first clue is what is written at the entrance of the Supreme Court.

Your post is still you, citing only yourself. And you're uselessly unreliable.

Show us the evidence to back your claims. Not your Begging the Question fallacies.

Oh, and just FYI....preponderant isn't a verb. You can't 'preponderant' something. You're just trying too hard to sound like you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you still can't back up *any* claim you've made.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument. I have expanded each post with more evidence and you are still stuck avoiding why Howard introduced the Fourteenth Amendment, why it was not debates or introduced in the House, etc., etc.

Preponderant is adjective and was used correctly sans the typo before it. It is word that you eschew.