If there were other posters on this thread - even one - who react to what I have to say the way you do, then I might be inclined to think that the problem is with me, not you. But as I said, your obfuscational abilities are quite unique. And by the way, you're the only one on this thread who's been doing any snitting. The rest of us have been holding normal conversations, in case you didn't happen to notice.
That is your amusing opinion, contradicted by the USSC opinion I posted yesterday.
Real profound observation there. Of course that opinion was contradicting what I had to say, because I was contradicting it. But apparently you don't want to get involved. That says enough.
Another fine little meaningless rant. Amusing.
Yup, I didn't think you'd actually want to discuss the subject, once the logic didn't start heading in your direction. It's also amusing that you think you can score more points by using my own word back at me. Cle-verr!
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.
And I notice you didn't repost it either, in order to prove your point. This is what I said: "I'm happy to let you and the rest of the people of your state work things out for yourselves. I'll deal with my state." In other words, "Live and let live." And yes, you were calling for federal intervention, whether you acknowledge it or not. Unless you really think the feds should just stop worrying about trying to enforce the 14th.
The 14th gives the 'feds' no power to violate legitimate state power.
Now there's a nice little Clintonesque line. Sure they have no power to violate "legitimate" state power, but as the SCOTUS opinion that you keep bringing up makes perfectly clear, the federal courts claim full authority do decide on their own what constitutes "legitimate" without giving any concrete understaning as to how they're to decide that - meaning, they can just inject their own personal opinions at pleasure. And my, how they do.
Indeed, why bother? -- Your own words keep digging you into that same 'political' hole. Our political system is corrupt, -- not the constitution.
That wall of ignorance is still holding strong, I see.
I answered, - you aren't happy, and call it evading. I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull.
Here, you're really showing your true colors. You were all too happy to answer me back when you thought you had a great answer for me - remember that non sequitur about "victims" which I shot out of the sky? - but then once you're painted in to a corner, "I'm just gonna dismiss yet more of your pointless bull," even though my question hadn't changed, only your inadequacy at answering it.
And no, you didn't even come close to answering the question. I asked you what evidence you had that the framers of the 14th intended to overturn these various state laws I mentioned, and you responded with your own tin-pot ideologies as to what you considered a "valid" law - as if I truly wanted to hear any more of your wisdom on that subject.
Anyway, you can dismiss all you want - you said that earlier in the thread, remember? But then you started up again with me, all on your own. Feel free to start up again any time you like.
------------------
To: inquest
You and Judge Black have claimed that the framers of the 14th intended to say a certain thing. I'm not arguing that point.
Of course you are; -- the framers intended to restrict states from violating constitutional rights. They wrote exactly that.
What you both have failed to explain is why it is that what somebody claims he intended to write is to be considered more valid than what he actually writes.
Nope, -- we haven't failed to explain, YOU have failed to understand the actual written language of the 14th. WE can't help you, it appears. - And I no longer WANT to.
You also failed to counter the point I made about the text of the amendment, in showing in detail that it doesn't mention the Bill of Rights, or even allude to them. All you said in response to that, is (again) that the framers intended to have it refer to the Bill of Rights. Thus, you're taking the conversation around in circles, and I think anyone watching us can see that.
Whatever. -- I, nor anyone else, is obligated to 'counter, in detail' your imaginings. Indeed, it appears to be impossible, due to your inability to frame logical points.
Whether or not you terminate the conversation is your choice, but that's not going to stop me from pointing out your non sequiturs to everyone else.
Have at it. - You'll simply make a bigger spectacle of your irrationality.
38 posted on 5/23/02 2:28 PM Pacific by tpaine
-----------------------------------
You did not respond to the above.
--- Then, a few days later, you again made a comment to the effect that the true 'intent' of the 14th was to subjugate the states to federal power. - I countered, - and thus, -- we again find ourselves at this impass.
You insist that the constitution is flawed. I insist it is not.
Our political system is flawed.