[PapaNew]

OK well if you're going to use names as a basis of a valid argument, I'd say Bork trumps Robinson in Constitutional law. Your mostly assertive and somewhat conclusory arguments have failed to overcome the weight of evidence & reasoning I've offered.

I think we're done.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you and you've challenged me to drill down on these issues which always helps sharpen my understanding of a particular subject.

The weight of argument and evidence I have laid out especially in post# 69 and it's consequences in later postings are a significant preponderance in this discussion in favor of the judicial restraint of limiting the scope of the 14A based on sound analysis of original understanding and intent.

[Ken H]

1. You did not define the key terms in the text of the 'P or I' Clause. You simply must know the meaning of the terms in a clause to know the meaning of the clause itself. That killed your argument right there.

2. It's fair to say my position prevailed on original intent. You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the framers, while yours is not. You also failed to provide any evidence that the ratifiers agreed with your position or disagreed with mine. The fact remains that they knew the intent of the framers and voted in favor of it.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you and you've challenged me to drill down on these issues which always helps sharpen my understanding of a particular subject.

Same here! So long.