[general_re]

Obviously you missed some fairly significant cases in those arguments. I'm not here to argue philosophy - if you want to discuss how you think the 14'th should have been interpreted, or some other clause should have been interpreted, then be my guest. But you give up the right to make airy-fairy philosophical arguments when you start talking about actual history and how things actually were...

[tpaine]

But you give up the right to make airy-fairy philosophical arguments when you start talking about actual history and how things actually were...

---

Ok with me.
Tell me what you believe to be the actual history I'm misinformed about.

[tpaine]

------CRICKETS--------
Give up the field?

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

Obviously you missed some fairly significant cases in those arguments.

How weird, you ask only if I'm familar with those cases, then jump to an assumption that I've missed some point you've never made.
I think you're playing some sort of 'authority' bluffing game.

I'm not here to argue philosophy - if you want to discuss how you think the 14'th should have been interpreted, or some other clause should have been interpreted, then be my guest.

And as I've said, -- make your point.
I've made mine. - I support the 14th. It was needed to stop state violations of individual rights. This was made evident in the congressional debates made prior to its ratification.