Oh, how so? All you can do is make assertions. The amusing thing is that you can never substantiate your claims.
Any one who is IDIOT enough to cite Lynch v Clarke, cannot be taken seriously.
Oh? As I've documented for you, Cong. Lawrence cited it as exemplary of the "existing law" the 39th Congress stated repeatedly it was affirming with the CRA and 14A. The U.S. Supreme Court (WKA) cited it favorably 3 times.
The Legislature of New York overturned that stupid pile of crap.
No it didn't. (Oh, right, come to think of it, this is one last remaining thing you keep dragging out that I haven't had the chance to disabuse you).
In any event, the 39th Congress cited Lynch. So did the SCOTUS. What does anything the NY legislature did after Lynch have to do with the Constitutional question?
Answer that one, DumbDumb.
Give that this is your stock in trade, you ought to be thrilled to get some of it back.