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.
In case you forgot, I wasn't the one who brought up Blaine, smarta*s.
I've asked for what you reference, since some of what you discuss is clearly prior to the passage of the 14th. Interestingly, you never seem to want to deal with the 14th itself. What say you to this passage?
There has never been much the anti-incorporationists could do with the May 1866 speech by Senator Jacob M. Howard, Republican of Michigan, formally introducing the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which was reprinted as front-page news the next day in the New York Times.[79] Senator Howard declared that the privileges and immunities protected by the Amendment would include
the personal rights guarantied [sic] and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as [he then listed rights contained in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments] . . . . [I]t is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied [sic] by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . . [T]hey stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating . . . them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.[80]
Howard’s views on incorporation were thus consistent with those of Bingham, the primary framer and leading House backer of the Amendment, and not a single member of either House of Congress, throughout all the debates, ever contradicted their plainly expressed understanding.[81]
[79] See Curtis, No State, supra note 22, at 87, 128; Fairman, supra note 22, at 54, 68 (both citing, inter alia, N.Y. Times, May 24, 1866, at 1). The New York Times also fully reported Bingham’s earlier speeches, unambiguously conveying his understanding that the Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the states. Bingham’s speeches to this effect were also widely distributed in pamphlet form. See Aynes, Bingham, supra note 54, at 72 & nn.84–85 (citing, inter alia, John A. Bingham, One Country, One Constitution, and One People: Speech of Hon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, in the House of Representatives, Feb. 28, 1866, in Support of the Proposed Amendment to Enforce the Bill of Rights (1866); N.Y. Times, Mar. 1, 1866, at 5; id., Mar. 10, 1866, at 1).
[80] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2765–66 (May 23, 1866).
[81] See Curtis, No State, supra note 22, at 91; Amar, supra note 22, at 1238. Anti-incorporationists have tried to blunt the impact of Howard’s speech by various means. Aside from denigrating Howard’s abilities and clarity of thought (the same tactic used against Bingham, see supra notes 71 and 73), some have placed undue stress on the fact that he was filling in for Senator William P. Fessenden, Co-Chairman of the Joint Committee, who was ill. See, e.g., Berger, Fourteenth, supra note 60, at 135–37; Berger, Government, supra note 33, at 147–48; Fairman, supra note 22, at 54–57, 134 n.381. This seems to grasp at straws, because Howard was a member of the Joint Committee and thus had been privy to its discussions and was obviously trusted by his colleagues to speak in Fessenden’s stead. Furthermore, his lengthy and detailed speech indicated thorough preparation and command of the issues. See Curtis, No State, supra note 22, at 126–28.