Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[dcraelin]

from wikipedia which proves you wrong


"The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registrar and against Minor. The state court observed that the "almost universal practice of all of the States ... from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time" was to restrict voting rights to men only;[7] and, additionally, that the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to give the rights of citizenship to the former slaves, and not to force other changes in state laws. The court noted, in particular, that the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment (penalizing states which denied the right to vote to any of its citizens) referred specifically to male citizens, and concluded that "this clearly recognizes the right, and seems to anticipate the exercise of the right, on the part of the States to restrict the right of suffrage to the male inhabitants."[8]"

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

 

[DigitalDrifter]

1800 posts for such a big fucking deal story. Fucking amazing.

It's unfortunate as hell that members of this board don't get a tenth as upset when elected officials refuse to enforce federal laws regarding illegal sanctuary cities.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh Christ! What the hell is wrong with you? I SAID THE SAME THING! The Missouri court did in fact say- as you are saying-that the 14th was for former slaves. However, we are now talking about the US supreme court! In this case they said no such thing. The case turned on the question of whether or not all citizens automatically have the right to vote.

Is it possible that you really don't get that? Do you think that I'm stupid? Are you playing some sick, fucked up game here?

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

 

[dcraelin]

You said it wasnt the 14th that granted the right to vote at all but the 15th.

further.....the SC centered their opinion on the rights of citizens to vote....they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves.

And yes I really think you are stupid.

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

try to follow your own arguments.

you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th," was that a mistake on your part?

they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"......they did NOT say the 14th wasnt addressing just former slaves".???? They did not say that it was dude. Your argument is still a pathetic fail.

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

try to follow your own arguments.

you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th," was that a mistake on your part?

they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.

I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.

There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.

You vacillate between claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?

 

[dcraelin]

no my argument is not...in fact reading the wiki page reconfirms my opinion.......reread the second part of the wiki and I think you'll have to agree. It does show perhaps tho the poor wording of the 14th which legalistically could be said to have allowed penalties if states didnt allow 12 year-olds to vote.

I have read before however that the 14th was unnecessary for granting voting rights, and that it was in-part written as a favor for Railroad corporations..... perhaps your mistake over the amendment shows that

you do admit that was a mistake on your part right?

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

try to follow your own arguments.

you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th," was that a mistake on your part?

they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.

I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.

There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.

You vacillate between claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?

you are morphing what you originally said on the 14th... it technically gave states a loophole but essentially gave the right to vote to slaves. so it goes to show that you cannot admit when you are wrong....so your other assertions are suspect.

no one argues the illegality of the 14th because it has become accepted...it shouldnt be. Some do argue against some of the assertions deriving from the 14th like "substantive due process".

you are changing what I said about the 14...I do think it applies beyond just former slaves.....not as far as you want to take it though. I said that just in the last post I believe...but you conveniently ignore it. And I think that basic argument was used.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What are you smoking? Straighten up and get back to me.

lol, you cant even admit making that little mistake can you

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

try to follow your own arguments.

you said "The 14th did not give those former slaves the right to vote either. That was the 15th," was that a mistake on your part?

they implied it in the very case you mention, by acknowledging that the right to vote was extended to former slaves within the amendment. I dont know if I restricted it to just former slaves tho...but also those who, like the slaves, may be singled out due to their race.

I am now convinced more than ever that you are insane, that you are living in a bizarre fantasy world that you created out of desperation in order to avoid the reality that frightens you so much.

There is no mistake in anything that I said. The 14th did not give the vote to former slaves. If it did , the 15th would not have been necessary. The women's suffrage case turned on the issue of whether or not all citizens have the right to vote.

You vacillate between claiming that the 14th was never ratified, and claiming that it only applies to former slaves, two positions that have been thoroughly debunked. I asked you before, and I'll ask you again now.....If either of those theories were viable, why were they never used by any of the geniuses that were defending the states bans on same sex marriage?

you are morphing what you originally said on the 14th... it technically gave states a loophole but essentially gave the right to vote to slaves. so it goes to show that you cannot admit when you are wrong....so your other assertions are suspect.

no one argues the illegality of the 14th because it has become accepted...it shouldnt be. Some do argue against some of the assertions deriving from the 14th like "substantive due process".

you are changing what I said about the 14...I do think it applies beyond just former slaves.....not as far as you want to take it though. I said that just in the last post I believe...but you conveniently ignore it. And I think that basic argument was used.

Look Old Sport, you have changed your story so many times that I'm not sure what you believe anymore. You may not even be sure. Now it seems that you will try to make me believe that you never took the position that the 14th only applies to former slaves, and alternately, that it was not even ratified. Fell free to continue to believe that it extended to right to vote to former slaves as well. You also laughably said that women were unable to win the right to vote under the 14th, again, and offered that as proof that it only pertained to slaves. Did you forget that or are you knowingly sweeping that under the rug?

The bottom line is this, Obergefell was properly decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. Neither you or anyone else has been able to present a coherent argument to the contrary. We're done here.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

Move over, Justice Roberts! You are taking up space that apparently belongs to Silhouette!

 

[Debra K]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

Silhouette. The Fourteenth Amendment is not a catalog of individual rights. It's a prohibition on the conduct of STATE government. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor deny any person equal protection under the law. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment secures the entire universe of individual rights against arbitrary government deprivations. Your opinion that private sexual conduct between two consenting adults is "deviant" is insufficient as a matter of law for imposing your opinion on everyone else in society through state laws. People who are similarly situated to other people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is that simple.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol

Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.

It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.

As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol

Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.

It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.

As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.

ROFLMNAO!

Delusion: PERSONIFIED!

How cool is that in one breath it claims that the newly formed Supreme Legislature did not establish degenerates as a Protected Class, then, in the next breath it defines the PROTECTIONS THE SUPREME ESTABLISHED FOR DEGENERATES.

LOL!

You can NOT make this crap up!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

First of all, you might be perceived as having some level of credibility if you didn’t find it necessary to present your question wrapped in hateful vitriol

Secondly, it’s apparent that you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.

It’s apparent that you have a piss poor and abysmal understanding of the constitution and of the case in question. What is worse is that you either do not have the ability to learn anything more, or have no desire to do so. Rather, you choose to wallow in your ignorance and bigotry- a disease of the mind that clouds your judgment and precludes any chance of rational thought.

As for Kim Davis, she goes back to work on Monday morning and it looks like she will be back in the grey-bar hotel by afternoon. Your understanding of the first amendment is quite in keeping with your level of emotional and intellectual functioning in general.

ROFLMNAO!

Delusion: PERSONIFIED!

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".

I'll wait.

But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment.

Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

Silhouette. The Fourteenth Amendment is not a catalog of individual rights. It's a prohibition on the conduct of STATE government. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor deny any person equal protection under the law. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment secures the entire universe of individual rights against arbitrary government deprivations. Your opinion that private sexual conduct between two consenting adults is "deviant" is insufficient as a matter of law for imposing your opinion on everyone else in society through state laws. People who are similarly situated to other people have the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is that simple.

Correct.

And the original intent and fundamental principle codified by the 14th Amendment is that the states may not engage in class legislation, where government is prohibited from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are – and as a fact of law gay Americans constitute such a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections, settled and accepted since Romer.

Consequently, state measures which seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law simply because they're gay fails to pass Constitutional muster, as such measures deny gay Americans their liberty to marry absent due process, and deny them equal protection of marriage laws absent a rational basis or proper legislative end.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Correct.

And the original intent and fundamental principle codified by the 14th Amendment is that the states may not engage in class legislation... .

Consequently, ...

The State figures that it must establish CLASS LEGISLATION!

ROFL! Now THAT is hysterical... and in every sense of the word.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. STUPID

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID

OH! A Re-Concession?

Sweet!

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is typical when an argument advanced by the Intellectually Less Fortunate is refuted... they run to change the subject. But hey... as Relativists, they lack the objectivity to admit that they are wrong.)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I told you...your keys are in the refrigerator behind the half eaten bowl of pabulum that you spit up in.

If they are not there, you might want to check your garbage to see if they got thrown out with your soiled Depends

ROFLMNAO!

I guess I'll never tire of watching the Intellectually Less Fortunate fail to comprehend simple questions... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It was a simple question all right. I'll give you that much.......simple as in simpleton. IN OTHER WORDS STUPID

OH! A Re-Concession?

Sweet!

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, this is typical when an argument advanced by the Intellectually Less Fortunate is refuted... they run to change the subject. But hey... as Relativists, they lack the objectivity to admit that they are wrong.)

Really? Now what argument was that? I haven't even seen a coherent argument coming from any of the bigots, including you. You don't even know what an argument is or how it's constructed. Give it a try. Start with a stated position such as "same sex marriage should be illegal" or " the constitution does not support a right to same sex marriage. Next, construct a premise that logically and factually supports your position.

Please do so without resorting to logical fallacies, hatful rhetoric, or lies. But you can't.