So Bork doesn't believe in ignoring it, but he thinks it should be left dead? I'd call that a Flip-Flop, wouldn't you?
My reasoning: Come, come now. Surely YOUR militia reasoning, which I admittedly like, is a bit convoluted.
Oh no it's not. You make it complicated for some reason. Didn't you agree "100 percent" and you really liked my reasoning? I'm tempted to call you on another Flip-Flop.
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.
No, there is no individual P&I issue in the division of powers. The Feds and States have their powers defined in Article I and the Tenth. There is no individual immunity from State or Federal education spending. The Feds are simply not granted such power. However, the States are reserved such powers, if they choose to exercise it.
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.
There is a Second Amendment that says the RKBA shall not be infringed. Where is the Clause which says, "shall not be illiterate"?
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.
Can we agree that Fed/State division of power is not a BOR/P&I issue?
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.
Then name some Privileges and Immunities of US citizens.
Bork says it has to be ignored because nobody knows what it means. Do you have an authority to say what it does mean? I have two (Bork and the SC in the SH cases that say it is meaningless. Sorry. I DO like your reasoning mentioned earlier. Does that mean that it's not convoluted. Again -- who else on all the face of the globe ever put forth this theory? There IS ABSOLUTELY an immunity to being taxed by the fed gove for educat spending. The fed gove cannot tax you for a project which it would be illegal to undertake. You write...There is a Second Amendment that says the RKBA shall not be infringed. Where is the Clause which says, "shall not be illiterate"?
Again, I thought you were not pushing the gun case on the BOR. Shall I post again the huge list of cases saying the BOR does not apply to the states? And there is indeed a clause which says "shall not be illiterate" Jokingly of course. It is, again, the enumeration, which gives the fed NO power to spend on educat.
Some privs and I's of us citizens -- I shall not be taxed by the fed gov for welfare spending, educat spending, environ spending, etc. I shall not pay for a federally supported church. The states may not issue paper money. The fed gove shall not prevent me from dying my hair blue, smoking dope or watching Sperm Bank Nurses.