State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[bodecea]

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

So you think that a Supreme Court Justice will ignore the wording of the Actual Amendment? Interesting.

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

 

[Sally Vater]

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

So you think that a Supreme Court Justice will ignore the wording of the Actual Amendment? Interesting.

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

 

[bodecea]

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

So you say. (as does anyone who doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling....SSDD)

I don't like my constitution being twisted and tortured by activists

Your constitution? You seem to think it is just yours? It is all of ours and...in case you weren't paying attention, the legal process used in making the Obergefell decision is exactly how our Founders intended the Judicial Branch to work....checks & balances, separation of powers...all that jazz. Bravo for the system working!

Chief Justice Roberts and three other justices agree with me and disagree with you. Your self-righteous rhetoric is meaningless.

That's nice. 4 is not enough, is it? My 5 beats your 4 as per the Constitution.

 

[Sally Vater]

I've posted this before.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

That's nice. A blog. How much legal weight does that carry, do you think?

Why don't you challenge a part you disagree with and make a point instead of whining and dribbling all over your bob about it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

You seem to think this is the only "non-ex slave " case using the 14th amendment.

Show us in this part of the 14th amendment it only applies to ex-slaves and their children:

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.

The amendment was passed to deal with citizenship for ex slaves and their children. Period. If you don't believe that then tell me why it was passed.

Really? Read the debates around it, and the SC decisions. If that's what they meant then why didn't they say that?

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Chief Justice Roberts and three other justices agree with me and disagree with you. Your self-righteous rhetoric is meaningless.

So are their opinions in this case. They lost.

 

[bodecea]

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

So you think that a Supreme Court Justice will ignore the wording of the Actual Amendment? Interesting.

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment?

To protect the rights of American citizens from the states either trying to take their rights away or also to unequally apply their rights. It also determines what IS an American citizen.

 

[bodecea]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

That's nice. Another blog. How much legal weight does THAT one carry?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

 

[bodecea]

I've posted this before.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

That's nice. A blog. How much legal weight does that carry, do you think?

Why don't you challenge a part you disagree with and make a point instead of whining and dribbling all over your bob about it.

I don't have to...because it isn't a SCOTUS decision. Blogs are dime-a-dozen these days. It changes the Obergefell decision not a wit.

 

[bodecea]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

 

[paddymurphy]

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

You seem to think this is the only "non-ex slave " case using the 14th amendment.

Show us in this part of the 14th amendment it only applies to ex-slaves and their children:

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.

The amendment was passed to deal with citizenship for ex slaves and their children. Period. If you don't believe that then tell me why it was passed.

Not just them...or else the language thru-out the entire amendment would refer only to them. It does not....and the following legal cases all use the 14th Amendment in the SCOTUS decisions....notice how few of them really are about ex-slaves and their children (who we can safely say are all dead now)

10 huge Supreme Court cases about the 14th Amendment

That proves my point that the amendment has been twisted and tortured. Thanks.

And how, exactly, does a case deciding a challenge based on the 14th Amendment equate to twisting and torturing it? Who, if not the Courts, should be applying the 14th Amendment?

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

 

[paddymurphy]

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

Well, an orginalist interpretation would not result in your silly claim that it only applied to freed slaves.

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

 

[bodecea]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

Yes...an Amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

I've posted this before.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

I am guessing you did not read that before posting it. While it sets forth an argument on whether the 14th confers birthright citizenship, it does not say a word about whether the Amendment was supposed to only apply to freed slaves or to all citizens or persons.