Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Syriusly]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

LOL......that is really funny.

 

[James Everett]

Because we do not waste energy and resources on every little battle using your Kangaroo court system. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. You go your way, as a third world debtor nation, while we go ours debt free, using our own gulf oil and resources,and as a people allowed to exercise real liberty,not some fictional version of it.

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

No,I am posting from the occupied Confederate State of Tennessee, and before you begin, please visit CSAgov.org.
Read some of the articles, then ask questions or take your best shots, but don't make me aware time in repetition.

 

[James Everett]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

Oh no, I'm not bitter, it's just an opportunity to point out that another fiction is being established on top of a pile of fiction, such as the continual reference to a "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. The greater the divide grows and the more the North exposes the fact that our Southern Confederate States exist under the occupation by forcing their fiction and immorality on our people the more the fiction / the Machiavellian illusion becomes exposed.

Yeah, but we're not buying your 'natural citizen' v. 'corporate citizen' bullshit. Nor can you back it up. Your 'capital letter' fantasy is pseudo-legal gibberish that neither the courts not the law recognizes as valid.

Your entire argument is predicated in a silly conspiracy that is has nothing to do with our laws.

Claim as you wish, however, how are you listed on your passport; U.S. Citizen, or American citizen?
Also, I suspect thi pseudo intellectual knows more about your govt system than YOU. Please by all means explain YOUR govt system and the two opposing systems that made up the framers'system.

 

[James Everett]

Alabama has to be concerned that if the redaction of the word "marriage" is forced upon them federally, that in the name of "marriage equality" none shall be denied.

So it is spot-on topic. Noted, though, is your wish that it would not be considered so.

No, it's the usual red herring you offer when you refuse to answer how denying gays marriage helps their children. I thought you were an advocate for children? Most of us know your full of shit when it comes to caring about children. The instant you can't use them in your anti-gay narrative you discard them to the trash heap.

There are about four pro-deviation from traditional historical set legal definition of marriage advocates that keep spouting of a bunch of emotional BS, who will never hear logic, as your minds as well as your ears are closed to the truth. None of you can place a logical explanation as to why the definition of marriage should be change from its traditional and historical legal definition to include that of a man ands man, or a woman and a woman.

I don't think 'logic' means what you think it means. Its not logical to ignore the existence of the 14th amendment. Its not 'logic' to assume that no legal definition ever changes, under any circumstance. Its not 'logic' to assume that simply stating your personal opinion establishes an irrefutable fact.

Yet you do all of these things. Back in reality, the 14th amendment does exist. And it extends the bill of rights to the States, allowing the federal government to overturn State laws that violate rights.

Back in reality, legal definitions change all the time. And can change with a simple legislative act or court decision.

Back in reality, you simply stating your opinion establishes nothing but your opinion. And you can't back your claim with logic or reason.

So what else have you got?

What in terms of legal benefits would or will be gained that could not be gained via a contracted civil union? There is nothing to be gained outside of a perverse thrill that is received by attacking the Christian religion which you perceive as conservative/ republican/ relight wing. In the end, that is all that you will gain that could not be gained via a contracted civil union.

Gays and lesbians marrying isn't an attack on Christianity. So the entire premise of your thesis is emotional nonsense.

Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies.... "Homosexual". Is not a race, it is not a sex as in man or woman..

The 14th Amendment does not mention race- or gender.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the courts have correctly interpreted that to mean that yes- even homosexual couples are protected by the 14th Amendment

From the Wisconsin decision:
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

Interesting how the you misquote the 14th,and confuse rights with privileges. Again the 14thqouls be more accurately applied to women who are denied the same PRIVIAGE as a man in traveling about in public topless. And then we have the polygamist and the incestuous who are being denied the same privilege as YOUR "homosexual".

 

[Montrovant]

If same-sex marriages will be legalized in all states... It will be largest fail ever! By legalizing drugs and perversions we're going to nether of liberalism and soon there will be no democracy... There will be anarchy!

You mean WHEN. They are already legal in 37 out of 50 states. The SCOTUS is taking care of the rest here shortly.

I think it's time that we take a look at a State with the least restrictive gun laws and take a fight to New York and force that State under the 14th and 2nd amendments to allow its citizens there to exercise their right to bear arms equally with that of, oh let's say Montana. Then in New. York city it's citizens may bear arms just as do those in the rural areas of Montana so that the laws will be equal. YOUR SCOTUS should be all about forcing New York apply it's rights equal to Montana.

Every citizen has the right to challenge laws they feel are unjust. You sound bitter because gays won their fight.

Oh no, I'm not bitter, it's just an opportunity to point out that another fiction is being established on top of a pile of fiction, such as the continual reference to a "federal court" as if a federal system still exists. The greater the divide grows and the more the North exposes the fact that our Southern Confederate States exist under the occupation by forcing their fiction and immorality on our people the more the fiction / the Machiavellian illusion becomes exposed.

Once again, while you may disagree with it, think it is illegal, whatever, the federal government demonstrably exists. Saying it does not only makes you look nutty.

Not that you need help with that, claiming you live in occupied territory and implying that the Confederate States will break away at some point.

 

[James Everett]

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

The 'moral states'. Who are the 'moral states'? Give us an example of a 'moral state'.

And Alabama is clearly going to lose. Just as it did when a federal court order required that they remove a monument to the 10 commandments erected at their judiciary. Then Judge Ray Moore was removed from the bench in 2003. And its quite likely he'll be removed from the bench again over this issue. As any federal ruling carries with it the authority of the federal judiciary.

And the federal judiciary has found that Alabama same sex marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees. And the Windsor decision clearly found that States were subject to those constitutional guarantees. You simply ignore constitutional guarantees and then laughably conclude that because you've pretended that constitutional guarantees don't exist that they no longer apply.

Alas, reality doesn't work that way.

As for 'dividing the country', don't you think its a little odd that Southern Secessionists bankrolled Moore's reelection to the Alabama Supreme Court? You're on the same side of this issue as the secessionists and those hoping our country implodes.

And you're apeing their rhetoric quite obediently. Remember the old adage about 'useful idiots'.

Please, explain what law has been established by congress that violates the second amendment, and what law YOUR SCOTUS used in rendering its opinion concerning the Ten Commandments monument. It just as this is an opinion based in fiction. And last, I challenge you to explain how a federal court can exist without there being a federal system of government in place today. Do you understand the two systems that the framers' cobbled together to form YOUR CONstitutionsl system? I really am curious to see if you. Even understand The basics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James Everett, you don't understand apparently. OK is stepping into federal law now, the federal judiciary is supreme on this issue. End of story.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it's the usual red herring you offer when you refuse to answer how denying gays marriage helps their children. I thought you were an advocate for children? Most of us know your full of shit when it comes to caring about children. The instant you can't use them in your anti-gay narrative you discard them to the trash heap.

There are about four pro-deviation from traditional historical set legal definition of marriage advocates that keep spouting of a bunch of emotional BS, who will never hear logic, as your minds as well as your ears are closed to the truth. None of you can place a logical explanation as to why the definition of marriage should be change from its traditional and historical legal definition to include that of a man ands man, or a woman and a woman.

I don't think 'logic' means what you think it means. Its not logical to ignore the existence of the 14th amendment. Its not 'logic' to assume that no legal definition ever changes, under any circumstance. Its not 'logic' to assume that simply stating your personal opinion establishes an irrefutable fact.

Yet you do all of these things. Back in reality, the 14th amendment does exist. And it extends the bill of rights to the States, allowing the federal government to overturn State laws that violate rights.

Back in reality, legal definitions change all the time. And can change with a simple legislative act or court decision.

Back in reality, you simply stating your opinion establishes nothing but your opinion. And you can't back your claim with logic or reason.

So what else have you got?

What in terms of legal benefits would or will be gained that could not be gained via a contracted civil union? There is nothing to be gained outside of a perverse thrill that is received by attacking the Christian religion which you perceive as conservative/ republican/ relight wing. In the end, that is all that you will gain that could not be gained via a contracted civil union.

Gays and lesbians marrying isn't an attack on Christianity. So the entire premise of your thesis is emotional nonsense.

Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies.... "Homosexual". Is not a race, it is not a sex as in man or woman..

The 14th Amendment does not mention race- or gender.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the courts have correctly interpreted that to mean that yes- even homosexual couples are protected by the 14th Amendment

From the Wisconsin decision:
It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

Interesting how the you misquote the 14th,and confuse rights with privileges. Again the 14thqouls be more accurately applied to women who are denied the same PRIVIAGE as a man in traveling about in public topless. And then we have the polygamist and the incestuous who are being denied the same privilege as YOUR "homosexual".

That was an excerpt from the 14th Amendment - and as I correctly pointed out- it does not mention race or gender at all

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What you believe is really immaterial- the courts have laid out the argument quite clearly- you will disagree- and you will be disappointed.

 

[Syriusly]

Because we do not waste energy and resources on every little battle using your Kangaroo court system. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. You go your way, as a third world debtor nation, while we go ours debt free, using our own gulf oil and resources,and as a people allowed to exercise real liberty,not some fictional version of it.

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

No,I am posting from the occupied Confederate State of Tennessee, a.

LOL.......

 

[Skylar]

Because we do not waste energy and resources on every little battle using your Kangaroo court system. Our agenda is much larger and wins all, which is an end to the occupation. In that battle we win all by nullifying all of the laws and debt that YOUR govt has forced upon us over the past 150 years of occupation. You go your way, as a third world debtor nation, while we go ours debt free, using our own gulf oil and resources,and as a people allowed to exercise real liberty,not some fictional version of it.

Talk about dividing the Union while our enemies press inward with ferocity? Really? I think this strawman is best left up to another thread. James, have you ever heard of the old military adage, "divide and conquer"?

I get that the moral states have a right to refuse to abide by any law but Windsor. And in that Alabama is doing exactly the right thing. But talk of dividing the Union? Are you posting from Moscow by any chance?

No,I am posting from the occupied Confederate State of Tennessee, and before you begin, please visit CSAgov.org.
Read some of the articles, then ask questions or take your best shots, but don't make me aware time in repetition.

Oh, shit. We're dealing with a neo-conderate.

No wonder you keep ignoring the 14th amendment. Well, mystery solved. No one gives a fuck what a neo-confederate thinks about the constitution. As they don't even acknowledge that slavery ended. That's a degree of detachment from reality that renders their perspective.....unproductive.

 

[Skylar]

Claim as you wish, however, how are you listed on your passport; U.S. Citizen, or American citizen?

Is this where you start to share your little batshit conspiracy about capital letters again?

Sorry, my little neo-confederate. But slavery is over. The 14th amendment is part of the constitution. And your personal opinion has no relevance to the outcome of any case.

Its not merely 'my claim'. Its the law in your state. Same sex marriage is recognized in Tennessee. And the authority you insist doesn't exist...has already been excercised. Ignore as you will. Gay folks still get married in Tennessee no matter how tightly you close your eyes.

As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Interesting how the you misquote the 14th,and confuse rights with privileges.

A 'misquote', huh? Which part of his quote is inaccurate?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Just highlight the portion of Sy's quote that are inaccurate and not part of the 14th amendment. Or retract your claim. Its one or the other.

As for rights and privileges, the Supreme Court says marriage is a right. You say its priveldge. The Supreme Court is authoritative. And your personal opinion isn't. So why would I ignore the USSC and instead believe you, citing yourself?

I've checked the constitution. You're not mentioned as adjudicating anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who cannot accept the 14th as it has been interpreted for the last 140 plus years needs to move to Alabama and stay there.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone who cannot accept the 14th as it has been interpreted for the last 140 plus years needs to move to Alabama and stay there.

Or any of the other states who, like Alabama, are soveriegns and who have the same rights as Alabama in this question of law.. Lucky, because there are 35 or more of those to choose from, including California:

The California Constitution as of today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

The 14th does not cover just some lifestlyes repugnant to the majorities "as experimental substitutes for father and mother to children as married"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, doesn't matter. Your misreading of Windsor doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter.

SCOTUS opinion will matter in June.

 

[James Everett]

Claim as you wish, however, how are you listed on your passport; U.S. Citizen, or American citizen?

Is this where you start to share your little batshit conspiracy about capital letters again?

Sorry, my little neo-confederate. But slavery is over. The 14th amendment is part of the constitution. And your personal opinion has no relevance to the outcome of any case.

Its not merely 'my claim'. Its the law in your state. Same sex marriage is recognized in Tennessee. And the authority you insist doesn't exist...has already been excercised. Ignore as you will. Gay folks still get married in Tennessee no matter how tightly you close your eyes.

As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know the law in Tennessee?
Please read......
Tenn code Ann'36 3 113
Tennessee also past a constitutional amendment defining marriage it's proper definition.
Please provide opposing proof that Tennessee allows "gay marriage"
Also why are you sorry that slavery is over? While the 14th amendment is part of YOUR CONstitution, it does not exist in ours.
As for "Bat Shit Crazy" ?
Such label apply to those who accept fiction.
You provide nothing in the way of facts, you still have no understanding of your govt system, and has of yet been able to explain what I have asked you concerning such. Yet I am batshit crazy?
You are base. Someone told you, or you read that all caps is a conspiracy theory, and you accept such without researching and testing for yourself. Such is the sheep mentality of those with low intellect.

 

[James Everett]

Well let's see how your 14th amendment applies....

Our 14th applies where ever someone's rights are involved. Being gay doesn't mean that the 14th amendment applies to you any less than if you were black, or white, or a woman, or a Jew. If you're an American, you have rights. And they are protected from State violation.

"Homosexual". Is not a race, it is not a sex as in man or woman. In Alabama, a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman. Now, your 14th would actually apply if a man could marry a man, yet a woman could not marry a woman, then you would have a law that allowed one sex a "PRIVILEGE " (NOT a RIGHT) while another sex was being denied the same privilege.

Show me where in our 14th amendment it states that it only apples on issues of race. There is no such passage. It applies to the privileges and immunities of US citizens. And requires that states apply the law equally. If a state law violates rights or is applied unequally, it violates our 14th amendment. And the federal courts can intercede to prevent it.

And marriage is a right. As Loving v. Virignia demonstrates elegantly, the restrictions in the laws themselves must be constitutional. In Virginia, the law prohibited interracial marriage. This applied to both blacks and whites, and per its advocates was thus 'equal'. But the restriction itself was unconstitutional. And thus overturned by the courts.

Similarly, the ban on same sex marriage itself must be constitutional. Its not enough to apply unconstitutional restrictions 'equally' as was done with interracial marriage bans. And same sex marriage bans fail just as thoroughly as interracial marriage bans. Says who? Says the 44 of 46 federal rulings on the matter. With the USSC likely to affirm the same in June.

A marriage contract is between a man and a woman.

Says you. In 37 of 50 States, it also includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Your argument is based on the absurd and provably false proposition that legal definitions can NEVER change. And that's nonsense. Legal definitions can change easily with a simple legislative act or a single court ruling.

You can ignore this. But you can't make the law or the courts ignore this.

Now, you exhibit scorn between separate but equal concerning a marriage contract and a civil union contract, yet all is separate but equal when it comes to sex.

But they're not equal. Not in practice, with many states prioritizing marriage over civil unions. Or in recognition, where many states don't even recognize civil unions. Or in benefits, where many federal benefits don't follow civil unions.

So why would gays settle for a civil union that is clearly inferior, when they have a right to marriage, which is clearly superior? Its a no-brainer.

I am pleased to see such division in your U.S. Grow with these issues, it is my hope to see another implosion, thus will benefit our cause of seeing an end to the occupation.

And I have you on record rooting against our nation and hoping for its collapse. Its amazing how much of your rhetoric sounds like something from the Soviet Era Politburo. Anything you'd like to tell us, Comrade.

Of course I am rooting against your "nation" duh!
Your Nation is not my nation. My State seceded from your former union of States in 1861, and was subsequently invaded and has been occupied by YOUR national govt since 1865. Why on earth would I root for YOUR "nation"?

 

[Skylar]

Or any of the other states who, like Alabama, are soveriegns and who have the same rights as Alabama in this question of law.. Lucky, because there are 35 or more of those to choose from, including California:

As the 14th amendment makes clear, states don't have the authority to violate the rights of citizens.

The California Constitution as of today:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

With the federal judiciary ruling that the provision is unconstitutional and thus, invalid. A ruling that went all the way to the Supreme Court...and was perfectly preserved.

Remember, Sil...you don't actually have a clue how the judiciary works. Or the relationship between federal government and state govenrment works. You've so laughably misunderstood the 14th amendment that you've adopted a secessionist argument that the States can ignore any federal ruling they don't like. When in reality, any federal ruling is authoritative unless stayed or overturned by a higher federal court.

You insist this can't happen. Gay marriage in 37 of 50 States says it can and does. And Ray Moore's removal from the bench a second time will only underline this point.

The 14th does not cover just some lifestlyes repugnant to the majorities "as experimental substitutes for father and mother to children as married"

Says you. And you're nobody. The Supreme Court on the other hand found that gays are protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer V. Evans

You say otherwise. No one gives a shit.

Worse, your 'experimental substitute' argument is meaningless gibberish. As gays and lesbians are already having kids by the tens of thousands. Denying same sex parents access to marriage doesn't mean their children magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that their children don't have married parents.

Denying same sex parents marriage doesn't benefit these children at all. And it causes severe harm. And you know this. Watch, I'll demonstrate by asking you a simple, 11 word question that will send you running like it were chasing you with a butcher knife:

How does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

(Psst....that's your cue to run).

 

[JakeStarkey]

James E and Sil have the right to their opinions, but they are only the opinions of nobodies and don't really matter.

 

[Skylar]

Please provide opposing proof that Tennessee allows "gay marriage"

Absolutely:

“At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, [same-sex] marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history,” wrote Judge Aleta Trauger.

Trauger’s order means that the state must recognize – at least for now – the “marriages” of three homosexual couples who married in states where the practice is legal and have sued to overturn the 2006 ban. The order currently applies only to those directly involved in the case.

For those three, gay marriage is legal. For the rest, Tennessee is one of the 4 states included in the USSC case being heard in a few weeks and ruled on in April. Most signs point to gay marriage being recognized nation wide by June.

While the 14th amendment is part of YOUR CONstitution, it does not exist in ours.

Says you. Yet Tennesse is part of the United States, readmitted in July of 1866. A fact acknowledged by the State of Tennessee. And as part of the United States, its subject to the US constitutions and its amendments.

The 14th is one such amendment. Thus, it applies to Tennessee. You say 'uh-uh'. You're laughably wrong. The Tennessee constitution itself recognizes that as its constitution must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States' in its own preamble.

As for "Bat Shit Crazy" ? Such label apply to those who accept fiction.

When you have to pretend that the 14th amendment doesn't exist, you're clearly delving into batshit territory. Even the Tennessee Judiciary recognizes the 14th amendment and cites the equal protection clause. This, from just last year:

By virtue of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, a criminal statute cannot be enforced when it prohibits conduct “‘in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACQUELINE CRANK

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/crankjacquelineopn.pdf

That's the Tennessee Supreme Court laughably contradicting your little batshit conspiracy theory. Recognizing the application and authority of the 14th amendment on Tennessee and citing it Tennessee judgments. Per your own Supreme Court, the 14th amendment is part of your law.

But you say 'uh-uh'. So what? You have yet to give me a single reason why I would give a shit what you imagine. As you obviously don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.