Then what are some examples of P&I? Does it make sense that the 14th prohibits States from violating P&I of US citizens but it doesn't include the RKBA?
As justice bork has noted, the sc properly left the p and i clause a "dead letter" in the Slaughterhouse cases.
IOW, Bork thinks it's OK to ignore the written words of the Constitution?
One of the problems with the p and i clause is as follows. Under the cons, I am IMMUNE to being taxed by the fed gov for education spending. Ed spending is left completely to the states, as you will find no fed power to spend on educ in the enumeration. IF!!! all the IMMUNITIES that the fed gove gives me, I also have with the state govs, this means that no state can spend on education. Surely that was not intended.
That is some of the most novel reasoning I've seen for a while.
The Feds are not granted the power to run education. Under the Tenth, the States are reserved powers not delegated to Congress and that would include education.
Also, the fed gove cannot legislate where abortion is concerned, following the p and i logic, the states also cannot legislate against abortion.
You're mixing Article I and the Tenth Amendment (State/Federal power) with P&I/BOR. You're saying that the fact that the Feds are not empowered to educate makes it a P&I. Again, very novel.
P&I -- no, bork doesn't believe it should be ignored, he is pointing out that the SC at the time thought so, and with good reason, P&I was left utterly undefined. NOBODY knows what it means, nobody has ever found any evidence what was intended. Read Bork's Tempting of America. It is unfortunate, he notes, that words were plainly put there for a reason, but since NOBODY knows what that reason is, it has been "left dead".
My reasoning: Come, come now. Surely YOUR militia reasoning, which I admittedly like, is a bit convoluted. And what's wrong with my reasoning? I am IMMUNE from edu spending on the fed level, if I am to enjoy all my immunities evenly, then I am immune on the state level too. It is PRECISELY the same reasoning as yours -- I am immune to gun laws on the fed level, therefore, I am immune to gun laws on the state level, would be your reasoning.
You write... The Feds are not granted the power to run education. Under the Tenth, the States are reserved powers not delegated to Congress and that would include education.
This is true, lacking that immunity thing we just discussed.
You write... You're mixing Article I and the Tenth Amendment (State/Federal power) with P&I/BOR. You're saying that the fact that the Feds are not empowered to educate makes it a P&I. Again, very novel.
Nothing novel about it. You would like P&I to equal BOR, again, the 14th amend does NOT mention the BOR at all. So, when I go looking for P&I, I naturally do not focus ONLY on the BOR, which, again, was not mentioned in the 14th.
Oh, I forgot. I thought you had said earlier that you were NOT relying on the BOR applying to the states for this discussion. But now you are. Also, there is a very good reason it would be IMPOSSIBLE to say, "The framers wanted the states to leave the guns alone, so they gave us the sup claus and the 2nd amend." This is utterly impossible because they gave us a constitution that was ratified and was the law of the land for at least one year that DID NOT HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS! The BOR was discussed at the cons convention in 1787 - of the 50 some men there, only TWO spoke in favor of the measure and the state delegations rejected the idea UNANIMOUSLY. Read fed 85 I believe to see why. The BOR came about, as noted earlier in Baron V. baltimore because anti-feds in the state applied pressure.