Surely you know the difference between de jure dead and de facto dead. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are de facto dead. How many laws have been overturned based on the protections afforded by those amendments?
Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.
I don't need to refute it - pointing out that it's just so much armchair quarterbacking serves well enough.
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?
No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.
Okay, I'll answer the question - what difference does it make what I think? Before the 14'th Amendment and subsequent court cases flowing from it, neither the states nor the courts nor the federal government thought that the Bill of Rights did much to restrict the states.
That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?
Bull. - Quote this 'law'.
Surely you know the difference between de jure dead and de facto dead. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are de facto dead. How many laws have been overturned based on the protections afforded by those amendments?
Yep. - No quoted law, just your phony bull, - as expected. - Thanks.
--------------------------
Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.
I don't need to refute it - pointing out that it's just so much armchair quarterbacking serves well enough.
How juvenile. Thanks again.
----------------------------
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
"You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?"
- No. - Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.
Okay, I'll answer the question - what difference does it make what I think? Before the 14'th Amendment and subsequent court cases flowing from it, neither the states nor the courts nor the federal government thought that the Bill of Rights did much to restrict the states.
No answer. Obviously, you are a 'states rights' devotee, but won't admit it. -- Why?
- Maybe cause you can't rationalize being clearly against the constitution? Strange beliefs, imo.
That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?
Why? -- "What difference does it make?" -- [To quote a recent idiocy.]