Bio not provided
I have no contradictions --none. You on the other hand, consistently contradict yourself.
You say things like "the States intended to honor the enumerated rights of the individual people within their jurisdictions." That is pure bovine dung. I mean really, what does that even mean? Not only is that statement fiction, it has zero --ZERO-- to do with the Bill of Rights and its purpose, which was to FURTHER RESTRICT THE FEDERAL.
You speak of "keeping to the text of the Constitution" then follow with some made up views that are polar opposite to the language of the framers and ratifyers. You support incorporating the Bill of Rights onto the States, then you gripe about the judicial branch ruling using public opinion instead of the Constitution as written.
Face it fella, you are a nationalist in federalist clothing.
8 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@onetenther @TaskForce16 @OnTheMark
The federalist and ant-federalist papers are great resources in addition to the well documented debates held in the individual States which gave the clearest description of what the people agreed to when they ratified the federal Constitution.
@TaskForce16 @onetenther @OnTheMark
I happen to be the only one "keeping to the text and language of the Constitution itself". You think the Bill of Rights applies to the States. I said you are incorrect because the language of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is crystal clear. You can't keep to the text and language any more than that.
@TaskForce16 States such as Massachusetts amended their Constitutions to recognize the limited and enumerated powers they agreed to delegate to the newly formed general government.And BTW: Yes, the NEW Congress debated and ratified the Bill of Rights. Nice story. What you so obviously avoid is the direct and clear language used by the NEW congress in the preamble to explain the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which was to further limit the general government only.
If you are not a nationalist, you do a very good impression of one. From your comments, I think you are extremely confused about the meaning of republicanism and federalism. You are right about one thing; the federal Constitution is a contract (compact) between the States. It is a compact in which every State in the Union has long since been in default.
That is exactly what I am saying, and it is also exactly what the framers of the Bill of Rights agreed to.
What you are proposing is that we simply disregard the actual words of those that created, debated, and ratified the Bill of Rights, and accept the 20th century "interpretation" of the 14th amendment.
You don't seem to understand the most basic issue here. If we allow the unconstitutional application of the federal Bill of Rights to the States, you jettison the Republican form of government based in federalism the ratifyers agreed to. What you are actually supporting is a gigantic National Government that completely removes the sovereignty and independence of every State.
I'll ask you the same thing I ask my own attorney. Why in the world does every State have their own Constitution with their own version of a Bill of Rights, if the founders intended for the States to answer to a single federal Constitution? Why did they make the federal limited? What is the purpose of the 10th amendment?
You are a nationalist and don't even know it...or maybe you do.
@TaskForce16 @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark
So you simply refuse to take the preamble to mean what it so clearly says? The members of the 1st Congress knew exactly what it was intended for and stated it ever so clearly. The BOR was implemented because the States "expressed a desire" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its --ITS-- powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added." The "institution" they are writing about is clearly the newly formed government and nothing else.
Try reading the preamble, or better yet, the debates of the 1st Congress associated with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, is a limitation on the federal only.
It is past time to take on the unconstitutional incorporation doctrine. Any person with a 7th grade reading level can understand that the Bill of Rights was a restriction on the Federal Governemnt only; not the states. This must be addressed.
9 months, 2 weeks ago on The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is Constitutional
@Noble Owney I guess you know that leads straight to the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. There's another twisted and unconstitutional liberal ruling from Plyler v Doe that needs to be readdressed.
1 year ago on Will Marco Rubio be the Next GOP Presidential Candidate?
@Noble OwneyYou are abslutely correct Noble. I was thinkng it but not writing it.
@Ron1007 Where do you get your information; the SCOTUS? The people's understanding of the requirements, when they consented to and ratified the Constitution, is all that matters. If you read what natural born meant in the 18 century, in works like "The Law of Nations" by Vattel, you will clearly see that it meant both parents had to be born in America. The Constitution states clearly that unless you were a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, you had to be a natural born Citizen. This subject has been twisted into oblivion, and is just another indicator of how dead our Constitution really is.
The guy is nowhere near a conservative in the Jeffersonian sense. He is just another big spending warmonger. He is no different than a big government liberal...
Besides the fact he is a Lindsey Graham - John McCain neocon, he is simply not qualified. It would be the exact same situation as Obama. Both parents must be born in the USA to be considered Natural Born. Of course since he is a big --BIG-- government Republican, the GOP won't mind that the rule of law isn't followed because it would be THEIR GUY this time. The Constitution is truly dead, and the vast majorities of the people are either in denial or glad.
Paul "Maynard" Krugman.
1 year, 6 months ago on President of Estonia goes ballistic on Paul Krugman | FP Passport