Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07
You've been a joke for a while. You run around acting like the Blaine Amendment is a silver bullet on incorporation, while, if you actually know anything about the subject, you are aware not only that its proposal was a blatantly political move to bolster Blaine's political aspirations, but also that its intended goal and the subject of its debates was the prevention of funding for parochial schools. The questions surrounding the Blaine Amendment are far more complicated than you present - not because the debate around the amendment confirmed a lack of intent to incorporate in the passage of the 14th Amendment, but because it contradicted volumes of debate on the 14th which clearly demonstrates that incorporation was a fundamental goal of the Amendment.

Now, since you consider my earlier comments a joke, why don't you tell us all, after Slaughter-House, what the legal import of the privileges and immunities clause is?

743 posted on 08/21/2003 3:58:39 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies ]


To: lugsoul
You're a joke and a dishonest one at that. The Blaine Amendment is peripheral to the issue of the original intent of the 14th Amendment. The issue was the numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to apply the "establishmnet clause" of the First Amendment to the States.

And what's more, you know it, hence the dishonest comment.

Blaine was an anti Catholic bigot and the fruits of the anti Catholic bigotry have contributed to the mythical wall.

You want to debate the Blaine Amendments smart guy. Be my guest. You need an eduaction.

But first, why don't you be a man and acknowledge the fact that TWO of the authors of the 14th Amendment offered an Amendment after the ratification of the 14th to apply the "establishment clause" to the states.

Nothing worse than a smartass absent the smarts.

747 posted on 08/21/2003 4:05:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul
I think the chief hump to overcome for the textualists is the 9th Amendment.

In reading the 9th, you have to conclude that the Founders intended for the document to be read outside the "four corners," or the 9th Amendment means the same thing as the 10th and is entirely superfluous.
748 posted on 08/21/2003 4:06:51 PM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson