Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[BuckToothMoron]

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

Avoiding my posts is not an argument.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.

I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.

And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.

Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so.

That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.

Uh, no thanks. I think I know all I need to know about you and your opinions

 

[Skylar]

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

Your post has nothing to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence, not a single citation, not a single quote. Nothing.

Just you....citing yourself.

Is that it? Is that the entirity of your argument? Just one big Begging the Question fallacy that even you admit you can't back up factually?

If so, that was easy.

Let us recap what you have avoided so far:

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 completely dismiss the House debates.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

Evidence, as I stated in my last post, is 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.

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

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.

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.

Anytime you want to provide any evidence that the 39th Congress was comprised of only two men, just post it.

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.

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.

You just spammed the same exact post twice.

And in neither spamming do you cite anyone or anything....but yourself. You can't seem to tell the difference between you making an accusation...and you proving the accusation.

For example:

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

Prove he was ignored by the Senate.

Your copy and paste out of context quotes spurn the very essence of historical and legal scholarship

Prove my quotations were out of context.

You can't. You're done.

I am so glad I am not a part of this argument. You guys are so smart,
nobody else can tell what you're arguing about.

I've argued that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States. A finding the Supreme Court agrees with and has for the last 120 years, as defined in their 'incorporation doctrine'.

I've also argued that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. As demonstrated by Rep. John Bingham, the primary author of section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly stating as much when introducing the 14th amendment to the House.

And Senator Jacob Howard saying the same thing when introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate. Both men were members of the joint committee tasked with writing the amendment.

Tenny insists that the Supreme Court is wrong, and that no one in the 39th Congress ever said that the 14th applies the Bill of Rights to the States. This despite me having quoting both Bingham and Howard explicitly stating that the 14th did apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Tenny insists that my two enormous quotes were taken 'out of context'. But when pressed to prove that claim.....he just says it must be so.

That's pretty much our debate. I can show you the quotes if you'd like. There's no ambiguity.

Uh, no thanks. I think I know all I need to know about you and your opinions

Then don't read a single one of my opinions. Just read Senator Howard's statements when introducing the 14th amendment.....or the Supreme Court's findings for the last 120 years.

I'm gloriously irrelevant to the validity of the argument, being merely a messenger.

 

[Skylar]

Most likely because of issues of fraud. Plus its fundamentally incompatible with our caselaw surrounding marriage. Either one of those would likely be enough to keep it illegal.

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

 

[Skylar]

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

They refused to hear the case.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

They refused to hear the case.

Who refused? Which court?

 

[Skylar]

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Aside from the legal Latin, they said no to same sex?

They refused to hear the case.

Who refused? Which court?

The Supreme Court. Of the United States? You....you get that's who we're talking about, right?

And if you want to know who specifically issued the denial of cert, look it up.

 

[Tennyson]

You have three out of context quotes.

Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.

I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

Like when you tried to tell us that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that you don't know what the Congressional Record included.

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.

Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.

Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later, ' to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution'

The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States.

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?

I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.

Prove they're out of context. I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context. Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

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.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to hear by issuing a court order for the submission of documents of a lower court case known as a 'writ of certiorari.' They cherry pick which cases they want to hear.

Now, if you want the Supreme Court to hear your case, you can file a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Essentially a request for the court to issue the writ in an appellant capacity. They will either approve or deny your request. If they approve your request, then there's a hearing before the Supreme Court and a formal ruling.

If they deny the request (which is what almost always happens), then the ruling of the highest court to hear a case stands. The lower court ruling doesn't form binding precedent nation wide.

On very rare occasion, the court can choose to issue a writ of cert on their own without an petition. This is crazy rare, but within the court's capacity.

In the case of Baker v. Nelson, a lower court had ruled on a request of two gay guys to marry. They lower denied them. The two dudes petitioned the court for a writ of cert. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

 

[Tennyson]

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

And when was the first case law for same sex?

'For same sex'? You mean in favor of same sexes? Or simply in regard to same sex marriage?

If the latter, that would probably be the Baker v. Nelson back in the 70s.

If you mean in favor of same sex marriage, that would be Windsor v US in 2013. And if want to talk about the history of cases that led up to Windsor.......you'd probably start with Loving v. Virginia, then to Romer v. Evans, then Lawrence v. Texas.

None of which, to the best of my knowledge, have been applied by the courts in defense of polygamy by any court.

And what did Baker V Nelson decide with regard to same sex?

It was a one sentence denial of writ of certiorari back when the law required that such denials of cert be formal replies.

The court does the same thing hundreds of time a year now with no comment.

Baker was not a petitioned via a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court operated under mandatory appellate review during the time of Baker.

 

[Tennyson]

Fraud? Don't really see that as a reason.Case law? Wasn't all the case law prior to same sex marriage that marriage was between opposite sexes. We didn't seem to have an issue changing it now.

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

 

[Skylar]

You have three out of context quotes.

Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.

I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

Like when you tried to tell us that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that you don't know what the Congressional Record included.

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.

Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.

Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later, ' to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution'

The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States.

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?

I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.

Prove they're out of context. I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.

Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record....is one sentence. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.

You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.

As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you think the Congress said. Only what you can prove the Congress said.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

[/quote]

Laughing...because I demand you prove your claims *with evidence*, rather than just taking your word for it?

You've already proven what you word is worth with your absurdly inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

I've quoted at least 2 people that did......both on the committee that wrote the amendment. Demonstrating that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner. As the harder you argue for your competence in the Congressional Record....the harder you argue that you knew about both Bingham and Howard and intentionally lied about them.

Its incompetence or dishonesty. Pick one.

 

[Tennyson]

The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to hear by issuing a court order for the submission of documents of a lower court case known as a 'writ of certiorari.' They cherry pick which cases they want to hear.

Now, if you want the Supreme Court to hear your case, you can file a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Essentially a request for the court to issue the writ in an appellant capacity. They will either approve or deny your request. If they approve your request, then there's a hearing before the Supreme Court and a formal ruling.

If they deny the request (which is what almost always happens), then the ruling of the highest court to hear a case stands. The lower court ruling doesn't form binding precedent nation wide.

On very rare occasion, the court can choose to issue a writ of cert on their own without an petition. This is crazy rare, but within the court's capacity.

In the case of Baker v. Nelson, a lower court had ruled on a request of two gay guys to marry. They lower denied them. The two dudes petitioned the court for a writ of cert. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

Baker was a binding Supreme Court ruling because it was not a petition for a writ of certiorari. That is how mandatory appellate review worked, and that was why the Supreme Court had to overturn Baker. The writ of certiorari as it is known today did not exist until the Supreme Court Case Selections Act was codified with 28 U.S. Code § 1257.

 

[Skylar]

Same sex marriage can use the exact same caselaw as opposite sex marriage.

Polygamy can't. For example, lets say that there are three people that are married. And one wants a divorce. Does that mean that the entire union is dissolved or that the person that wants to divorce simply exists, leaving the other two still married?

I have no idea. No one does. As there is zero case law in any state to answer such questions. And there are a dozen just like it that our laws have no answer for.

There's your rational reason.

What would be the rational reason for denying same sex couples access to marriage? You have none. Which is exactly my point.

So polygamy is bad and illegal because we don't know how to dissolve it if one of the married people wants a divorce?

Polygamy has a rational basis for denial: its complete incompatibility with our existing caselaw regarding marriage.

What is the rational reason for the gender based discrimination in marriage? As same sex couples use marriage law the exact same way that opposite sex couples do.

You've never once been able to answer that question.

I've conceded....for the third time. What case law was there for same sex that doesn't apply to polygamy?

The Oberfegell ruling, for one. There's no mention of polygamy anywhere in it. Nor has there been the slightest application of the Obergefell ruling in defense of polygamy by any court, anywhere.

Jonathan Turley used the Oberfegell ruling for a defense of polygamy in Utah.

Turley isn't the courts. He's a defense attorney. And anyone can argue anything they'd like. Whether or not the court finds their arguments compelling is a completely different story.

The court never cited any applicability of Obergefell in the Brown case. Nor did the court overturn polygamy law. Merely laws recognizing cohabitation *as* polygamy. Bigamy (which is what polygamy legally is) is still quite illegal. With the court explicitly holding such when they ruled.

 

[Tennyson]

You have three out of context quotes.

Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.

I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

Like when you tried to tell us that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that you don't know what the Congressional Record included.

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.

Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.

Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later, ' to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution'

The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States.

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?

I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.

Prove they're out of context. I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.

Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record....is one sentence. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.

You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.

As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you think the Congress said. Only what you can prove the Congress said.

Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

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.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context. Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

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.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

 

[Skylar]

You have three out of context quotes.

Begging the Question. Prove they are out of context. You merely saying it must be so is meaningless gibberish.

Show us the evidence. You can't. Which is why you keep running every time I ask.

I probably need to make you aware that there was an entire Senate and and entire House, and the debated did not revolve around you out of context quotes or Bingham and Howard.

Like when you tried to tell us that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States?

Bingham and Howard both put your silly load of rhetorical horseshit to bed.

Laughing....dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Which is why I'm asking you for actual quotes from the Congressional Record rather than your ignorant blather about what the record included. As you've demonstrated, unambiguously, that you don't know what the Congressional Record included.

Show us the quotes supporting your argument. Don't tell us about them.

Again, you keep posting this same out of context quote as well, and is from the middle of a statement regarding
the privileges and immunities clause, not the Bill of Rights.

Obvious bullshit. He says right there a sentence or so later, ' to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution'

The first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights are all enumerated rights in the constitution at that point. These were the fundamental rights that he insisted should be applied to the States.

And yet in defiance of all reason, you insist he wasn't referring to the Bill of Rights?!

Laughing...really?. There's a reason why 120 years of judicial precedent is on one side of this issue and you on the other. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why do you not add this statement by Bingham?

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to say that this amendment takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.

And who, pray tell, claims that the 14th takes away a right of the State?

I am not sure what you point is by avoiding my posts and posting out of context quotes by two people.

Prove they're out of context. I'm not sure what the point of your Begging the Question fallacy is. But given your wildly inaccurate claims about the Congressional Record (remember your idiocy that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the bill of rights to the States), surely you understand why you citing yourself is meaningless gibber jabber.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context.

Nope. You haven't. As the only citation you've made from the entire congressional record....is one sentence. That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You've TOLD us what you think the 39th congress said. But as demonstrated by your ludicrously inaccurate claims that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th applied the Bill of Rights to the States......you don't know what the 39th congress said about the 14th amendment.

You'll need to prove, with evidence, that the 14th doesn't apply to the States. That my quotes of Bingham and Howard introducing the 14th amendment were 'out of context', or that Howard was ignored by the Senate.

As always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

You're not getting around this, Tenny. No one gives a fiddler's fuck what you think the Congress said. Only what you can prove the Congress said.

Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

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.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

I am pretty confident that I have sufficiently demonstrated that your quotes are out of context. Just in case you are not familiar with what context may be, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be the very first words spoken to the very last words spoken of the 39th Congress regarding not only the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The debates started on April 30, 1866 and culminated on July 9, 1868. That is almost a year of debates with the civil rights act and hundreds of pages of debates. Your entire argument rests on a couple of out of context quotes by Bingham and Howard. Not only are the quotes out of context with their full body of statements limiting the Fourteenth Amendment to an enforcement of the privileges and immunity act of Article IV, but are out of context with the totality of the debates. Even if there statements were in context and they did offer them up as debate, which did not happen, there sentiments were ignored and the body of the debates did not revolve around the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Your first fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of all incorporation apologists, is if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, it would have stated that it was incorporating the Bill of Rights. The primary purpose and function would have been to overturn Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833):

Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Not only did the 39th Congress did not make the amendment overturn Barron, but the amendment did not mention incorporation the Bill of Rights. If you want to know how an amendment or the Bill of Rights would have been amended, then read the Eighteenth Amendment and how it was amended with the Twenty-First Amendment.

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

The Twenty-First Amendment is how the Fourteenth Amendment would have read if it incorporated the Bill of Rights.

And again, this is why your out of context quotes have no value.

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.

Prove your claims. You can't. You're done.

What a petty little person you are.

You're just spamming again.

You citing yourself isn't evidence. Its an excuse for evidence. ANything you 'tell' us about what the Congress argued is meaningless. As you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

SHOW us with actual citations. As I did when I quoted both Bingham and Howard explicitly arguing that the intent of the 14th amendment was the application of the Bill of Rights on the States.

That's evidence. Now you try.