I didn't respond to it because you made it clear you didn't want to go any further. From that very post: "WE can't help you, it appears. - And I no longer WANT to." Plus, if we did go further, we would have just been going around in the same circles we'd been going around in, and Ned had much more interesting things to talk about.
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 never said that, or anything to that effect. I certainly did say that the feds are presently using the 14th for that purpose, because they clearly are; but I never said that that was the intent of the framers. To help clear up my position on that, you might refer to my #8: "My biggest problem isn't with the actual provisions of the amendment, but with the way it gets glaringly misapplied."
I never said that, or anything to that effect. I certainly did say that the feds are presently using the 14th for that purpose, because they clearly are; but I never said that that was the intent of the framers.
I posed the question about the 14ths 'intent' at posts 97/99, to little coherent response. - Finally, at post #114, I asked:
What IS your main point? Can you formulate one, or are you just trying to pettifog the issues?
"Why, my main point is that the 14th amendment doesn't incorporate the BOR. Surprised you didn't see that either."
First time you've actually claimed that, I believe. -- What then, is the 14ths purpose, if it does NOT apply the BOR's to the states? - 114 tpaine
----------------------------------
You made no reply.
-- Thus, to all practical effect, case closed as to your intentions.