Roy Moore: "Immorality Sweeps Over The Land"

[ding]

I would agree with you that the establishment clause also tied the hand of state governments except it was specifically written to do the exact opposite. To keep the federal government from establishing a national religion and from interfering with the state established religions which were explicitly allowed.

But had it not been written that way, then the states should not be allowed a trojan horse exception to a federal restriction.

 

[martybegan]

Then how was it intended? It was a restriction on the States.

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

The intent was to stop the States from screwing with the freemen by removing federal rights from them. To do this the mechanism was to grant them and all citizens their federal "privileges and immunities" regardless of what the States do.

Applying that idea to the concept of incorporation isn't a very big leap.

Yes, it is a huge leap. Those rights you were talking about were rights of citizens. They weren't recognizing them as citizens. They shouldn't have even needed the 14th. That's not the call of the states.

Neither is the 2nd Amendment. At least not when it pertains to the intention of the framers. They framed it and the states ratified it.

Ratified it as part of the FEDERAL constitution. You are trying to make one amendment more equal than another.

 

[ding]

What happened after the slaves were emancipated?

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

The intent was to stop the States from screwing with the freemen by removing federal rights from them. To do this the mechanism was to grant them and all citizens their federal "privileges and immunities" regardless of what the States do.

Applying that idea to the concept of incorporation isn't a very big leap.

Yes, it is a huge leap. Those rights you were talking about were rights of citizens. They weren't recognizing them as citizens. They shouldn't have even needed the 14th. That's not the call of the states.

Neither is the 2nd Amendment. At least not when it pertains to the intention of the framers. They framed it and the states ratified it.

Ratified it as part of the FEDERAL constitution. You are trying to make one amendment more equal than another.

No. I am making each amendment stand on its own as they should be. For the post part the Bill of Rights are things the government can't do. With the exception of the establishment clause, these restrictions apply to the states as well. They ratified them.

 

[martybegan]

You are going to have to make your own point, I'm not the type to get led into statements. Stop being coy.

If you don't understand why the 14th was written then you don't know the intent of the 14th.

The intent was to stop the States from screwing with the freemen by removing federal rights from them. To do this the mechanism was to grant them and all citizens their federal "privileges and immunities" regardless of what the States do.

Applying that idea to the concept of incorporation isn't a very big leap.

Yes, it is a huge leap. Those rights you were talking about were rights of citizens. They weren't recognizing them as citizens. They shouldn't have even needed the 14th. That's not the call of the states.

Neither is the 2nd Amendment. At least not when it pertains to the intention of the framers. They framed it and the states ratified it.

Ratified it as part of the FEDERAL constitution. You are trying to make one amendment more equal than another.

No. I am making each amendment stand on its own as they should be. For the post part the Bill of Rights are things the government can't do. With the exception of the establishment clause, these restrictions apply to the states as well. They ratified them.

Ratification doesn;t automatically imply States don't want to do things, before the 14th all it meant is they didn't want the feds to be able to do things.

 

[JoeMoma]

Moore needs to read the Constitution

Moore needs to read the Constitution’s case law, acknowledge it as the law of the land, and respect the rule of law.

And it’s not just Moore, that’s something every conservative needs to do.

And by law of the land you mean to say state law because the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only restricts the Federal Government from establishing a national religion and from interfering with the established religions of the states of which there are presently none.

Did the 14th amendment effective change the word “congress” to the phrase “all levels of government” in the first amendment.

 

[JoeMoma]

Wasn’t refusing to concede how Al Franken finally got into the Senate? Moore lost I think he should concede but this type of stuff didn’t start with Moore or to be fair Franken either it doesn’t happen often but it is part of politics.

Why should anyone give a shit for the looser of a election to concede?

I guess it’s the nice thing to do.....but so what?

 

[JoeMoma]

Moore is now going to be a cartoonish figure..who litters the landscape with fodder for late-night comedy--he is reduced to being a meme--This Amuses Me!

Both Roy Moore and Hillary Clinton should fade into obscurity.