Trump criticizes SC decision on homosexual "marriage" promises to appoint judges that will overturn!

[NYcarbineer]

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because you have a right to live, which means you have the right to defend yourself.

Who says so?

 

[Skylar]

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before the medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

Infertile people aren't 'conceivably' fertile. A woman who has had a hysterectomy has as much chance of giving birth as Randy Savage.

And he's dead.

Yet any woman who had had a hysterectomy, any man who had zero sperm count...or no testicles after say, cancer....all of them were permitted to marry in EVERY state. There was no state anywhere that held anyone to your standards.

But we should invent standards that don't exist anywhere.....and then apply them only to gays? Um, no. We're not gonna do that. Your reasoning is horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because you have a right to live, which means you have the right to defend yourself.

Who says so?

You don't believe people have a right to live? That explains a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before the medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

Infertile people aren't 'conceivably' fertile. A woman who has had a hysterectomy has as much chance of giving birth as Randy Savage.

And he's dead.

Yet any woman who had had a hysterectomy, any man who had zero sperm count...or no testicles after say, cancer....all of them were permitted to marry in EVERY state. There was no state anywhere that held anyone to your standards.

But we should invent standards that don't exist anywhere.....and then apply them only to gays? Um, no. We're not gonna do that. Your reasoning is horseshit.

We've been over this over and over and over again. I'm done arguing with queers about gay marriage. They aren't capable of rationality.

 

[Skylar]

That's the most ignorant post you've ever made on this board, and, all things considered, that is quite an accomplishment.

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You said they had to be 'in' the constitution. And if they weren't, they should be overturned.

Um, the 9th amendment kicks the shit out of that idea.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You said they had to be 'in' the constitution. And if they weren't, they should be overturned.

Um, the 9th amendment kicks the shit out of that idea.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

That isn't what I said, numskull. Now go to bed.

 

[Skylar]

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before the medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

Infertile people aren't 'conceivably' fertile. A woman who has had a hysterectomy has as much chance of giving birth as Randy Savage.

And he's dead.

Yet any woman who had had a hysterectomy, any man who had zero sperm count...or no testicles after say, cancer....all of them were permitted to marry in EVERY state. There was no state anywhere that held anyone to your standards.

But we should invent standards that don't exist anywhere.....and then apply them only to gays? Um, no. We're not gonna do that. Your reasoning is horseshit.

We've been over this over and over and over again. I'm done arguing with queers about gay marriage. They aren't capable of rationality.

Laughing.....translation, your argument doesn't make the slightest sense. You can't name a single state that holds anyone to the standards you made up. And so you're going to pout and run.

Surely you can understand why the USSC didn't base their ruling on reasoning that even *you've* abandoned.

 

[Skylar]

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You said they had to be 'in' the constitution. And if they weren't, they should be overturned.

Um, the 9th amendment kicks the shit out of that idea.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

That isn't what I said, numskull. Now go to bed.

Laughing.....so you didn't say this, huh?:

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Why would it a right have to be mentioned in the constitution, else it be 'overturned?' Remember, the 9th amendment is something that the rest of us can still see:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It doesn't disappear just because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You said they had to be 'in' the constitution. And if they weren't, they should be overturned.

Um, the 9th amendment kicks the shit out of that idea.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

That isn't what I said, numskull. Now go to bed.

Laughing.....so you didn't say this, huh?:

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Why would it a right have to be mentioned in the constitution, else it be 'overturned?' Remember, the 9th amendment is something that the rest of us can still see:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It doesn't disappear just because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Here you go, numskull: To be a "constitutional right," it has to be in the constitution. Sure we have other rights that the constitution doesn't mention, but queer marriage isn't one of them.

 

[Skylar]

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

You said they had to be 'in' the constitution. And if they weren't, they should be overturned.

Um, the 9th amendment kicks the shit out of that idea.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

That isn't what I said, numskull. Now go to bed.

Laughing.....so you didn't say this, huh?:

They would overturn it on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so how can it be a constitutional right?

Why would it a right have to be mentioned in the constitution, else it be 'overturned?' Remember, the 9th amendment is something that the rest of us can still see:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It doesn't disappear just because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Here you go, numskull: To be a "constitutional right," it has to be in the constitution.

And again, the 9th amendment contradicts you:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There's no requirement that a right must be in the constitution in order for us to have it. Quite the opposite, the Constitution *explictly* contradicts you in the 9th amendment.

Again, Bri...and I can't stress this point enough: You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Laughing....so by 'freedom', you mean stripping people of rights. Like, the right to marry.

I don't think freedom means what you think it means. What you're describing is POWER. The POWER to strip people of rights. That's what you demand the Supreme Court invest in the States.

Um, no thank you. NOt only is your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the Supreme Court's authority, your demands are self contradictory horseshit. As the power to strip people of rights is not 'freedom'.

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because you have a right to live, which means you have the right to defend yourself.

Who says so?

You don't believe people have a right to live? That explains a lot.

The government told you that you have the right to own a gun. The government has also told you that you have the right to marry.

Why is one a right and the other not a right?

 

[Debra K]

Not everything has to be a right . Just a law. If you make a law it has to pass equal protection , which is a right .

State has a marriage law , it's then subject to the constitutional protections .

Driving is not a right . But you can't limit driving to just men. That would violate the constitution .

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

Your thinking is bizarre ... Orwellian. People you don't like are allowed to enjoy the same civil rights that you enjoy, and you think that's tyranny? You must be suffering from "affluenza". You're crazy.

FYI: You are the tyrant. You are the oppressor. You're the one who wants to deprive other human beings of basic freedom. The only "enemies of freedom" that exist in this country are you and others like you. But, the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell means that you and others like you don't have the right to abuse the power of the state to impose your oppressive, tyrannical views on everyone else in society. Now go to your corner and pout, you spoiled rotten child.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is a collection of privileges granted by the government. There is no "right to marry." There is no "freedom to marry."

Why is there a right to bear arms?

Because you have a right to live, which means you have the right to defend yourself.

Who says so?

You don't believe people have a right to live? That explains a lot.

The government told you that you have the right to own a gun. The government has also told you that you have the right to marry.

Why is one a right and the other not a right?

The Constitution says I have the right to own a gun, not the government. Government doesn't determine my rights. It only determines the law.

 

[bripat9643]

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

Your thinking is bizarre ... Orwellian. People you don't like are allowed to enjoy the same civil rights that you enjoy, and you think that's tyranny? You must be suffering from "affluenza". You're crazy.

FYI: You are the tyrant. You are the oppressor. You're the one who wants to deprive other human beings of basic freedom. The only "enemies of freedom" that exist in this country are you and others like you. But, the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell means that you and others like you don't have the right to abuse the power of the state to impose your oppressive, tyrannical views on everyone else in society. Now go to your corner and pout, you spoiled rotten child.

There is no right for queers to marry, just as there is no right for the blind to drive.

 

[Debra K]

That's the most ignorant post you've ever made on this board, and, all things considered, that is quite an accomplishment.

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

 

[Montrovant]

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

It's sad that such simply concepts have to be explained to morons like you. I think you would all die within hours if you had to fend for yourselves in the wilderness. You would probably insist that a lion had no right to eat you.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

 

[Skylar]

there's nothing equal about so-called "gay marriage" and real marriage.

So you say. The supreme court found otherwise. And found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. You disagree with the findings of the supreme court.

Um, so what?

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Can you name a single state that had that requirement BEFORE the Obergefell ruling? Just one.

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that. He's an idiot and his ruling is absurd. I've seen better logic from you than what was in his ruling. In fact, most of his logic was exactly the kind of nonsensical pablum you post in this forum.

Yet today you were expressing your love for the Court getting your kind of guys on it, so they could advance your personal agenda.

You are an idiot.

I have no love for the court. It's an engine of tyranny. The only defense against it is to staff it with people who will use it against the enemies of freedom. That means you, bootlicker.

Your thinking is bizarre ... Orwellian. People you don't like are allowed to enjoy the same civil rights that you enjoy, and you think that's tyranny? You must be suffering from "affluenza". You're crazy.

If its crazy, its a wide spread illness among conservatives. This is the beating heart of the Texas governor's proposal for a constitutional amendment that would allow 2/3rds of the States to override any Supreme Court ruling. With 2/3rds being the number they almost have.

Conservatives want the power to strip citizens of federal protections and federal rights. And then turn rights into crimes.

This they call 'freedom'.

I'm not exaggerating. I'm not offering you hyperbole. This is their actual position. When you state it clearly like this, they will deny it. When you get specific, they'll tell you WHY you're right. They genuinely conceive of freedom and liberty....as the power to strip people of rights. And in the battle between rights and powers, they always choose power with two caveats:

1) The power has to be that of the State.
2) Guns are protected.

Beyond that, game on.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean one jackass on the SC decided that.

No, that would be the majority of the Supreme Court. And with the majority of the Supreme Court goes the authority of the Federal Judiciary.

You disagree with them. So fucking what? You're nobody.

Also, show me ONE state that followed this standard before the Obergefell ruling:

Marriage should be limited to people who at least conceivably might be able to procreate at some point in their lives.

Just one.

They all did, you babbling fool. That's why it was limited to two people of the opposite sex.

So all states had marriage standards which excluded infertile couples before Obergefell?

Oh, wait, none of them did.

I said "conceivably." Since marriage laws were created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile, the only test was for people to have sex. Getting pregnant without being married was a disaster for a women, so marriage always preceded the demonstration of fertility.

It's sad that such simply concepts have to be explained to morons like you. I think you would all die within hours if you had to fend for yourselves in the wilderness. You would probably insist that a lion had no right to eat you.

Every marriage law prior to Obergefell was created before medicine could determine whether someone was fertile?

Skylar asked you to name one state that had a standard of a couple needing to conceivably be able to procreate before the Obergefell ruling. You replied that they all did. The fact is that none of them had such a standard. Prior to Obergefell there certainly was the possibility of medically determining whether someone was fertile.

Even if, for some strange reason, we were to go back to the first marriage laws created in this country, age was still a possible determinant for fertility; were the elderly barred from marriage prior to Obergefell?

What the hell does fending for one's self in the wilderness have to do with the state of US marriage laws before Obergefell? You might reconsider calling someone a moron when trying to defend the position that all states had standards of marriage revolving around fertility a year ago.

The argument that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is so stupid that it's propagation can only be the result of some kind of brain damage.

You're another queer who is too stupid and irrational to waste time arguing with.

Good night.

 

[Skylar]

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

Not according to many conservatives. Bri stated an obscenely inaccurate perspective again and again: if its not in the constitution, its not a constitutional right.

This is anathema to the entire concept of the Constitution, which is an exhaustive list of powers. With the 9th amendment making it ludicrously clear that enumeration in the constitution is *not* a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

Yet they ignore the 9th amendment. Their focus is the 10th. Many conservatives will happily, eagerly prioritize the 10th amendment over the 9th. The power of the State over the rights of the individual. And call it 'freedom'.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm, there isn't the slightest thing ignorant about it. Libs don't even like the rights that the Bill of Rights expressly protects.

Tell us what the 9th Amendment means. In your own words.

Not what you think it means. I don't take homework assignments from leftwing turds.

Notice you don't actually answer his question. Here's the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now...where does it say that a right has to be enumerated in the constitution for the people to possess it? Just highlight that portion for is.

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

I never said it did have to be enumerated in the Constitution, but queers don't get to claim it's a constitutional right when it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

The right to marry is a fundamental right within the meaning of LIBERTY, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution against state deprivations.

Wrong.