Nothing. But that is not all that you are saying. You need to read your own post after the line that I quoted, for an illustration. The fact that the Constitution is supreme, does not apply the language of the Constitution that limits one entity to another entity that it does not limit. Your suggestion that this somehow justifies the Fourteenth Amendment, changing the responsibility of the players, is completely circular--particularly when you even go so far as seeking to look the other way on the ratification question, in order to accomplish this reallocation of Constitutional responsibility.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Nothing. But that is not all that you are saying. You need to read your own post after the line that I quoted, for an illustration.
How odd. -- You expect me to understand an argument you can't frame? Weird.
The fact that the Constitution is supreme, does not apply the language of the Constitution that limits one entity to another entity that it does not limit.
This sentence is gibberish. It makes no sense. - Try again.
Your suggestion that this somehow justifies the Fourteenth Amendment, changing the responsibility of the players, is completely circular--particularly when you even go so far as seeking to look the other way on the ratification question, in order to accomplish this reallocation of Constitutional responsibility.
Now you simply build upon the nonsense of your first gibberish sentence to spout more bullish bafflegab.
Either clean up your empty rhetoric, or find someone else to bother with your meaningless pap.