Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[jillian]

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

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You lose again. Twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the federalist papers are not law. and what hamilton set forth was his opinion and that opinion certainly came into conflict with jefferson's vision.

conversely, supreme court decisions are law.

the high court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution.

see: Marbury v Madison, and its sequelae

 

[regent]

I have always referred to the The Federalist Papers as simply letters to the editor.

 

[Skylar]

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

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You lose again. Twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the federalist papers are not law. and what hamilton set forth was his opinion and that opinion certainly came into conflict with jefferson's vision.

The federalist papers give us a clear picture of what the federalists meant by the terms that they used. Federalist 78, for example, describes the judicial power. This is relevant, as the Federalists where the overwhelmingly dominant force in the writing of the Constitution.

Jefferson is probably one of the least relevant founders you could cite in the writing of the constitution. He didn't write even one of the federalist papers, wasn't a representative for any state at the constitutional congress, didn't attend a single session, wasn't even in the country.

Hamilton, however.....was one of the three writers of the Federalist Papers. And the Federalist Papers give an excellent view into what the constitution means according to those that wrote it.

conversely, supreme court decisions are law.

The Supreme Court is also on my side. Or more accurately, I'm with them. With 120 years of precedent in favor of the 14th applying the Bill of Rights to the States. And the Obergefell decision in 2015 affirming that same sex marriage is constitutionally protected.

the high court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the constitution.

see: Marbury v Madison, and its sequelae

You're preaching to the choir. I'm the one arguing in favor of the Supreme Court's authority, and with the USSC's rulings.

Its Tenny and Moron that insist that the Supreme Court is wrong and that they know better.

 

[Skylar]

I have always referred to the The Federalist Papers as simply letters to the editor.

I've found them useful in understanding what the founders were going for in writing the constitution. The degree of its utility depends on how much of an originalist you are.

As most of the people challenging judicial authority claim to be 'originalists', I find the Federalist papers an excellent foil for shutting down their arguments with evidence.

 

[Tennyson]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable. They were written by three men primarily for New York. The notes of the Philadelphia convention, the state's ratifying conventions, and the personal writings and speeches of the founders are the most reliable.

 

[Skylar]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

 

[Tennyson]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

 

[Skylar]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in? Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in? If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government? Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities. So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions. And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason. Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also. But here is the flip side. If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend? What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision. But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.

 

[Tennyson]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in? Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in? If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government? Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities. So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions. And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason. Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also. But here is the flip side. If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend? What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision. But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.

Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement. Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn. STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in? Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in? If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government? Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities. So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions. And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason. Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also. But here is the flip side. If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend? What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision. But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.

Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement. Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn. STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them

Just as certain persons can get hired and fired for meeting and not meeting certain criteria, this same hire/fire process is applicable in all agencies of employment. And the only place where you cannot get fired by your boss is if you run your own business. All else, including governmental agencies are public businesses that can be checked and balanced, even audited. To be honest, it just seems that no one wants to fire anyone right now.

I'd be quick to fire an employee who didn't know how to make shoes if I owned a shoe manufacturing store.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

And when the Supreme Court affirms that laws denying same sex couples access to marriage violate the 14th amendment, that invalidates any such laws.

 

[Skylar]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in? Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in? If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government? Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities. So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions. And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason. Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also. But here is the flip side. If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend? What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision. But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.

Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement. Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn. STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them

Why are you responding to yourself?

 

[Skylar]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

 

[Tennyson]

The Federalist Papers are the least reliable.

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing yourself. And as you demonstrated in your meltdown in our conversations regarding the 14th amendment.....you really don't know what you're talking about.

Back in reality, the Federalist papers stand as one of the clearest, most cogent, and most transparent windows into what the logic behind the constitution was meant to be.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

 

[Tennyson]

How about that Blaine Amendment?

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.