Yes because one of us understands the intent by reading the writings of the men who were involved with the document's creation and the other one well....
In exactly two of its cases, the Supreme Court has chosen to make available through its own website all of the briefs filed in the case. As it so happens, I filed briefs in both of those, which were Bush v. Gore, and McConnell v, FEC.
Well, provide a link then. To your brief. Surely you don't expect me to go rambling around the SCOTUS website when someone such as yourself should be more than gratified to provide a link to your work. As for the other 17 briefs, I'm sure some law website has links to this information. I would just like to see where you're coming from in your arguments....
Once you have spent more time doing your homework than time spent sniping at me, feel free to report back. Until then, I reject all your objections as coming from someone who knows far less about constitutional law than he thinks. Are you a lawyer? If you are, you must have slept through your course in Constitutional Law.
No, and neither were all the men who framed this nation. I have however read and understand Tucker and Blackstone. Surely Tucker has a good understanding of the document that was written in his time than you or many others. Wouldn't you agree? Or shall we know throw Tucker's arguments under the bus to maintain your argument.
Your argument on Constitutional 'law' apparently boils down to this. The majority of lawyers accept it as a given, therefore even if it flies in the face of intent, it must be a given. So I put my question to you again. If Scalia and Thomas have voiced disagreement with Blackmun's decision in 1897 (unfortunately they did not voice it in this opinion) are they wrong as well? If you have a problem with that, I would suggest you hope sincerely that Janice Rogers Brown and others like her never get to SCOTUS. Her past opinions are clear she is one of the strongest federalists I have seen in some time. She makes Thomas look moderate.
Also why did those that studied and practiced Constitutional 'law' from the mid 1860s until 1897 not able to find this incorporation clause that you say is a given? Because it was not in the intent of the majority of the writers of said Amendment
BTW, on another subject, hopefully better for you, I didn't hear how your campaign went. Did you have the opportunity to run against Taylor or at least the primaries?