It does, and I've answered. - You just didn't understand, or accept the 'simple meaning'. - Tough.
It's funny, because in the couple of months I've been on FR, I've encountered a number of different debating tactics. There've been some who've distorted what I've said, some who've just responded in these total tangential non sequiturs, and some who just get plain nasty. But you have a very unique style - you just outright dismiss points that contradict your position, and don't even bother to deal with them. It's actually kind of amusing.
But just in case you're willing to actually do some debating, I'll say this once again for your, uh, consideration. Due process refers to the actual process by which a law is administered. It has nothing to do with the kind of restriction on activity that the law imposes. I know that you want it to mean more than that. I know that your political philosophy calls for a very minimalist approach to governing (which really isn't all that bad a philosophy), but the law says what it says, not what you want it to say. Now you can dismiss that as nitpicking all you want - as if the meaning of the words contained in the laws has nothing to do with what the law actually says! - but you'll just be building a wall of ignorance around yourself (and judging from the results, it looks like construction is coming along just fine).
Thanks for your admission. Rare honesty from a statist.
So let's see: I was saying "Live and let live", and you were demanding federal intervention to right the wrongs in your locale, but I'm the statist. Ah yes, it's all clear now... (?)
Nope, the constitution doesn't give the feds the power. The political system has. YOU are the one confused.
What do you think, the 14th amendment enforces itself? What would have been the point of passing it if they didn't expect the feds to intervene to make it stick?
You've made my point, - in 'bold'. -- The 14th is not the problem here. The states submit to the feds for political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Well, sure, in a paragraph that size, you can pluck out just about any sentence in isolation and have it say something that was never intended. Allow me to highlight the points that would pluck it back into context: "That [referring to judicial harassment using the 14th amendment as a pretext], combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments." In other words, 14th-amendment litigation makes states vulnerable to all sorts of Jesse Jackson-style pressure groups, and weakens their resistance. The increased costs that result from such litigation, along with the measures they have to take to avoid it, increases the states' dependence on Washington, which in turn further erodes their sovereignty. Get it? (why do I ask)
Read some history. There are dozens of USSC decisions citing the 14th. Try 'findlaw'.
I wasn't asking for all the cases which cite the 14th, I was asking you which ones you think were essential to furthering the cause of liberty in this country (or does Findlaw have a tpaine Hall of Fame section?)
I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true?
No.
Really? So you wouldn't be opposed to a repeal of the 14th amendment? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
To be valid, common criminal law requires a victim, an injured party. -- You want the state to be that injured party....Apparently, you want the state to enforce 'morals' as a majority defines them.
Nice try at evading my question by impugning my motives for asking (speaking of straw men). Maybe you'd like to try answering it, now?
It's funny, because in the couple of months I've been on FR, I've encountered a number of different debating tactics. There've been some who've distorted what I've said, some who've just responded in these total tangential non sequiturs, and some who just get plain nasty. But you have a very unique style - you just outright dismiss points that contradict your position, and don't even bother to deal with them. It's actually kind of amusing.
In the four years + that I've been here, your type comes and goes constantly. -- You clowns somehow assume your bafflegab style of bull makes 'points'. It seldom does. - Thus, most of it is dismissed, leading to your little snits, like this one.
- You are right, it's amusing.
But just in case you're willing to actually do some debating, I'll say this once again for your, uh, consideration. Due process refers to the actual process by which a law is administered. It has nothing to do with the kind of restriction on activity that the law imposes.
That is your amusing opinion, contradicted by the USSC opinion I posted yesterday. - You're trumped.
I know that you want it to mean more than that. I know that your political philosophy calls for a very minimalist approach to governing (which really isn't all that bad a philosophy), but the law says what it says, not what you want it to say. Now you can dismiss that as nitpicking all you want - as if the meaning of the words contained in the laws has nothing to do with what the law actually says! - but you'll just be building a wall of ignorance around yourself (and judging from the results, it looks like construction is coming along just fine).
Another fine little meaningless rant. Amusing.
------------------------
Thanks for your admission. Rare honesty from a statist.
So let's see: I was saying "Live and let live", and you were demanding federal intervention to right the wrongs in your locale, but I'm the statist. Ah yes, it's all clear now... (?)
-- You weren't saying that, & - I wasn't either. - In context, you made a 'statist' type admission. - Which is why you didn't repost it.
-----------------------------
Nope, the constitution doesn't give the feds the power. The political system has. YOU are the one confused.
What do you think, the 14th amendment enforces itself? What would have been the point of passing it if they didn't expect the feds to intervene to make it stick?
The 14th gives the 'feds' no power to violate legitimate state power. ---- It merely restates the limits. State cannot violate the individual inalienable rights we have always possessed.
-------------------------------
You've made my point, - in 'bold'. -- The 14th is not the problem here. The states submit to the feds for political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Well, sure, in a paragraph that size, you can pluck out just about any sentence in isolation and have it say something that was never intended. Allow me to highlight the points that would pluck it back into context: "That [referring to judicial harassment using the 14th amendment as a pretext], combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments." In other words, 14th-amendment litigation makes states vulnerable to all sorts of Jesse Jackson-style pressure groups, and weakens their resistance. The increased costs that result from such litigation, along with the measures they have to take to avoid it, increases the states' dependence on Washington, which in turn further erodes their sovereignty. Get it? (why do I ask)
Indeed, why bother? -- Your own words keep digging you into that same 'political' hole.
Our political system is corrupt, -- not the constitution.
---------------------------------
Read some history. There are dozens of USSC decisions citing the 14th. Try 'findlaw'.
I wasn't asking for all the cases which cite the 14th, I was asking you which ones you think were essential to furthering the cause of liberty in this country (or does Findlaw have a tpaine Hall of Fame section?) I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true? No. Really? So you wouldn't be opposed to a repeal of the 14th amendment? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
-- Really? -- I suppose you think you've made a clever 'point' again. This is getting boring. Close to dismissal time.
I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
To be valid, common criminal law requires a victim, an injured party. -- You want the state to be that injured party....Apparently, you want the state to enforce 'morals' as a majority defines them.
Nice try at evading my question by impugning my motives for asking (speaking of straw men). Maybe you'd like to try answering it, now?
No thanks.
-- I answered, - you aren't happy, and call it evading. I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull.
It's funny, because in the couple of months I've been on FR, I've encountered a number of different debating tactics. There've been some who've distorted what I've said, some who've just responded in these total tangential non sequiturs, and some who just get plain nasty. But you have a very unique style - you just outright dismiss points that contradict your position, and don't even bother to deal with them. It's actually kind of amusing.
In the four years + that I've been here, your type comes and goes constantly. -- You clowns somehow assume your bafflegab style of bull makes 'points'. It seldom does. - Thus, most of it is dismissed, leading to your little snits, like this one.
- You are right, it's amusing.
But just in case you're willing to actually do some debating, I'll say this once again for your, uh, consideration. Due process refers to the actual process by which a law is administered. It has nothing to do with the kind of restriction on activity that the law imposes.
That is your amusing opinion, contradicted by the USSC opinion I posted yesterday. - You're trumped.
I know that you want it to mean more than that. I know that your political philosophy calls for a very minimalist approach to governing (which really isn't all that bad a philosophy), but the law says what it says, not what you want it to say. Now you can dismiss that as nitpicking all you want - as if the meaning of the words contained in the laws has nothing to do with what the law actually says! - but you'll just be building a wall of ignorance around yourself (and judging from the results, it looks like construction is coming along just fine).
Another fine little meaningless rant. Amusing.
------------------------
Thanks for your admission. Rare honesty from a statist.
So let's see: I was saying "Live and let live", and you were demanding federal intervention to right the wrongs in your locale, but I'm the statist. Ah yes, it's all clear now... (?)
-- You weren't saying that, & - I wasn't either. - In context, you made a 'statist' type admission. - Which is why you didn't repost it.
-----------------------------
Nope, the constitution doesn't give the feds the power. The political system has. YOU are the one confused.
What do you think, the 14th amendment enforces itself? What would have been the point of passing it if they didn't expect the feds to intervene to make it stick?
The 14th gives the 'feds' no power to violate legitimate state power. ---- It merely restates the limits. State cannot violate the individual inalienable rights we have always possessed.
-------------------------------
You've made my point, - in 'bold'. -- The 14th is not the problem here. The states submit to the feds for political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Well, sure, in a paragraph that size, you can pluck out just about any sentence in isolation and have it say something that was never intended. Allow me to highlight the points that would pluck it back into context: "That [referring to judicial harassment using the 14th amendment as a pretext], combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments." In other words, 14th-amendment litigation makes states vulnerable to all sorts of Jesse Jackson-style pressure groups, and weakens their resistance. The increased costs that result from such litigation, along with the measures they have to take to avoid it, increases the states' dependence on Washington, which in turn further erodes their sovereignty. Get it? (why do I ask)
Indeed, why bother? -- Your own words keep digging you into that same 'political' hole.
Our political system is corrupt, -- not the constitution.
---------------------------------
Read some history. There are dozens of USSC decisions citing the 14th. Try 'findlaw'.
I wasn't asking for all the cases which cite the 14th, I was asking you which ones you think were essential to furthering the cause of liberty in this country (or does Findlaw have a tpaine Hall of Fame section?) I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true? No. Really? So you wouldn't be opposed to a repeal of the 14th amendment? Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
-- Really? -- I suppose you think you've made a clever 'point' again. This is getting boring. Close to dismissal time.
I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
To be valid, common criminal law requires a victim, an injured party. -- You want the state to be that injured party....Apparently, you want the state to enforce 'morals' as a majority defines them.
Nice try at evading my question by impugning my motives for asking (speaking of straw men). Maybe you'd like to try answering it, now?
No thanks.
-- I answered, - you aren't happy, and call it evading. I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull.