[inquest]

Of course he is. So what? Notice his qualification, in bold. -- The balance of our rights are not defined, -- they are NOT enumerated, - and are thus covered by the 9th & 10th.

You're missing the point. You had said that the entire Section 1 was what incorporated the BOR, whereas your source is saying that it's only the P&I clause that does so. Surprised you didn't see that.

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.

[tpaine]

Of course he is. So what? Notice his qualification, in bold. -- The balance of our rights are not defined, -- they are NOT enumerated, - and are thus covered by the 9th & 10th.

You're missing the point. You had said that the entire Section 1 was what incorporated the BOR, whereas your source is saying that it's only the P&I clause that does so. Surprised you didn't see that.

Not surprising at all, seeing I've never said that. I view the 14th as binding on the states without 'incorporation', which, imo, - is just the legal/political oppositions way of skirting the 14ths clear intent, as written.

-----------------------------

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?

And why do you oppose an amendment that protects your own individual rights?