Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

[
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state.

Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause


(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;

And finally- explicitely- you are refuted

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

The equal protection clause and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are not clauses pertaining to rights, especially fundamental rights as that requires same-sex marriage being in the history and tradition of this country. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are procedural due process. Kennedy used substantive due process, which did not exist until the twentieth century.

 

[Skylar]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

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.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

[
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution. Twentieth century activist judges used the Fourteenth Amendment to change the Constitution. They are two different things.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed change the Constitution. In many fundamental ways- beyond even Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Prior to the 14th Amendment States had much more power to deny the rights of Americans within their state.

Obergefell refers repeatedly to the Due Porcess clause


(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;

And finally- explicitely- you are refuted

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

The equal protection clause and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are not clauses pertaining to rights, especially fundamental rights as that requires same-sex marriage being in the history and tradition of this country. The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are procedural due process. Kennedy used substantive due process, which did not exist until the twentieth century.

Says who? If its just you citing yourself again, you're gonna need a better source.

And as we've *long* established, the intent of the 14th amendment was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, to change the constitution to allow the federal government to protect the rights of federal citizens from State law.

The precedent on the 14th amendment is over a century long. While the period where the courts ignored the intent of the 14th was about 3 decades.

Yet in defiance of all logic and reason, you insist that the 14th amendment *didn't* change the constitution. Do you even know what an amendment to the constitution is?

 

[Tennyson]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

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.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

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.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obergefell v. Hodges said:

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

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

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

You are a few decades late to the issue.

 

[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 to 'being out of context'.

 

[Tennyson]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with an out of context quote from Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78, which is out of context with the other writings by Hamilton and the other founders regarding interpretation of the Constitution: Hamilton also emphasized these same sentiments in Federalist No. 81, Federalist No. 33, and on June 18, 1787, in the Philadelphia convention.

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is referencing the judiciary and the federal Congress only as the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the states other than a conflict with one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The court overstepped its bounds once regarding the states in the founding era, and the Eleventh Amendment was proposed in three days to reign in the court.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

You are quote mining for support of your worldview, and that is not credible. An out of context quote from one document, which is out of context for all the documents on this subject is not an argument regarding the founders’ intent on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

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.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obergefell v. Hodges said:

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

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

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

You are a few decades late to the issue.[/QUOTE]



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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

Horseshit. My citation of Federalist 78 is completely in context and establishes, unambiguously, that the judiciary is to be the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution.

With 'them' being the federal judiciary. And 'its' being the the constitution. We have the constitutionally designated body to interpret the constitution saying one thing. And you saying another.

Obviously the Federal Judicary wins.

Hamilton is citing the judiciary and its role as interpreter of the meaning of the constitution. That's beyond dispute. As Barron v. Baltimore established, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States under the Constitution. The 14th amendment changed that, granting the federal government the power to prevent the States
from violating the rights of federal citizens.

Which every State citizen is.

All of which I'm pretty sure you know.

Again, horseshit. You have provided nothing to back your perspective, nor the slightest evidence that the judiciary isn't the interpreter of the meaning of the constitution by design. You've simply alluded vaguely to the quote being 'out of context' or 'quote mined'.

When we both know its fully in context and obviously establishes my point: That the federal judiciary is the arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

And like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. Thus, any dispute between you and the federal judiciary on the meaning and application of the 14th amendment has the same winner every time:

Not you.

Hamilton is speaking of the separation of powers. Hamilton is also speaking to the limitations on Congress and if they pass legislation outside of their purview. Hamilton is not speaking of state laws or state constitutions.

You left the next paragraph out also:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

​

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the Constitution.

Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not use the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

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.

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obergefell v. Hodges said:

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

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

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

You are a few decades late to the issue.

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

Why should I discuss your strawmen?

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

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

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

 

[Tennyson]

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

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

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.

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

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

Good luck with all that when you write your next law 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.

 

[Tennyson]

A citation which in no way contradicts my point. As the judges have an obligation to put the Constitution above any statute. Under the Bill of Rights, any federal statute. Under the 14th amendment, any state law as well.

Which is exactly what they did in Obergefell....placing the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution above the State laws that violate the rights of citizens.

Exactly as the federal judiciary should.
Laughing....of course it did. Every amendment changes the constitution. That's what amendments are. With the primary proponents of the 14th amendment in congress arguing that it would apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

With Senator Howard going so far as to read the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, as what the 14th amendment is intended to apply to the States.

They even cited Barron v. Baltimore as establishing that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. And cited the 14th amendment as changing that.

To argue that the 14th was never intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the States or change the constitution is beyond ludicrious. And you know its nonsense, as I've quoted citations of both Howard and Bingham to you making these exact points.

Um, wow. You're really out of your depth. As the Obergefell court obviously did;

Seriously, do you ever fact check any of the nonsense you type? I'm kinda embarrassed for you at this point.

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

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

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

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

Says good old Federalist Paper 78.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obergefell v. Hodges said:

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

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

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

You are a few decades late to the issue.

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

Why should I discuss your strawmen?

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

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

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

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

 

[Tennyson]

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hjmick]

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

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

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

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

How did I ever miss this idiotic tripe?

"Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned" Yeah, not really... Millions of people have lots of sex for pleasure only, probably more than those who have sex for procreating only. I'm married, we're not going to procreate. Ever.

"the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society" Not. Even. Close. Educate yourself.

Fuck, the rest is to ignorant to bother with. IndependunceAss makes my head hurt...

 

[Tennyson]

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

Says you. Hamilton says differently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You lose again. Twice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tennyson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tennyson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a "law brief?"

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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