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

[James Everett]

Ja

TN recognizes the 14th. Do not deflect, James.[/QU
JAKE, you and your lil minion make this too easy. You mention deflecting yet I met you head on exposing your ignorance and pathetic attempt to mislead using a child neglect case claiming it as a "gay marriage" case.
Yet clearly you and your lil minion are deflecting by not rising to my challenge concerning YOUR CONstitutional system. Did you really think such would be successful ????

 

[Skylar]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

How pathetic is your simplistic mind. A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law. That is in no way the equivalent of a man and a man being allowed to call their civil union contract a marriage contract, they simply do not meet the requirements to define their civil union contract a marriage contract. Are you simply incapable of grasping simple logic? And yet we also note that you still avoid answering my questions about your govt system.

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

Please do cite where I stated that YOUR 14 th amendment does not apply to Tennessee while we remain under occupation. And just because the 14th was cited by your occupational court in Tennessee in relevant cases to that amendment does not mean that your illogical equation to "gay marriage" is in any way relevant, as I have already explained but obviously went way over your head and ability to grasp simple logic as to why YOUR 14th does not apply to your lil fiction.

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

Since you obviously have no clue as to your own CONstitutional system as is evident from your inability to answer my simply questions, let's try something more simple for your simplistic mind.
Are the Articles if Confederation still in force, or were they abandoned?
Are some of those articles still in force while others are not?
And yes, these questions are relevant to the current discussion of which you are way over your head.

 

[Syriusly]

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"

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

 

[Skylar]

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

Please do cite where I stated that YOUR 14 th amendment does not apply to Tennessee while we remain under occupation.

Please cite where Tennessee claims to be under 'Occupation'. As you citing yourself is meaningless gibberish.

And Tennessee ratified the 14th amendment. According to who? According to Tennessee.

"Tennessee became the third state to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, before any other Southern state and earlier than most Northern states."

http://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/07-08/41-A History of Tennessee.pdf

You say 'uh-uh'. Who gives a shit? Not me. Not the courts. And clearly not even Tennessee.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And just because the 14th was cited by your occupational court in Tennessee in relevant cases to that amendment does not mean that your illogical equation to "gay marriage" is in any way relevant, as I have already explained but obviously went way over your head and ability to grasp simple logic as to why YOUR 14th does not apply to your lil fiction.

And who says its an 'occupational court', my little batshit secessionist?

There's you. Citing you. Which means nothing, as you don't know what you're talking about.

So far, you haven't given me a single reason to give a fiddler's **** what you imagine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James is as pathetic as Protectionist in arguing.

Tis what it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

 

[Montrovant]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

 

[James Everett]

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"

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

I don't care about what California allows concerning "Gay Marriage" anymore that I care what Syria allows concerning "Gay Marriage" Neither are Tennessee, or part of our confederacy. California is not an occupied State, California never seceded from The previous union of States, thus remains a part of the consolidation into a singe sovereign. If the people of California wish to defy the the opinion of nine political appointees who go against the will of the authority in that State, (that being he people) then they should do just that, however, that cannot be accomplished using the body politic that currently exists in California because it is part of the consolidated political system that sits in place of the framers system as a result of Lincoln and the Northern States rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/178 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment. The supreme authority in California, (that being the people) would need to establish a body politic outside the curreny political venue as described in the Tennessee Republic Plan Under the Restoration

 

[Syriusly]

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"

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

I don't care about what California allows concerning "Gay Marriage" anymore that I care what Syria allows concerning "Gay Marriage" Neither are Tennessee

Bully for you- I really don't care what odd fantasies you have about the South Rising Again either.
But meanwhile in California- thousands of happy couples in love are getting married- which is wonderful progress.

 

[Syriusly]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Absurd to someone irrational like yourself.

Meanwhile the courts don't find that assertion absurd at all.

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How adorable that James Everett and Where r my Keys think they are authorities, though they have offered nothing other than their theories.

All they have left is "I think it is icky."

 

[James Everett]

How pathetic. You cite a child neglect case that has nothing to do with "GAY marriage" and claim that it is a legal case that makes such legal in Tennessee? You again are making a fool of yourself!!!!!

If the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee....why would the Tennessee SUpreme Court cite it in ANY case?

Laughing.....you've painted yourself into a corner. And a really dumb corner. As all I have to do to disprove your foolish little conspiracy is cite ANY case where the Tennessee Supreme Court cites the 14th amendment. The moment I do that, you lose. As it demonstrates that yes, my little secessionist, the 14th amendment does apply to Tennessee.

And your own Tennessee Supreme Court acknowledges it. And even more laughably, it destroys your delusional assertion that Tennessee isn't part of the United States. As the United States Constitution only applies inside the United States.

Two conspiracies obliterated with one blow. You'd be shocked at how little energy it takes to toast your silly nonsense.

Again Skylar, courts do not set in judgement determining word definitions.

They Courts can and do invalidate current definitions if those definitions violate the constitution. Even the Tennessee Constitution recognizes that must be 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'. And violating equal protection requirements are not 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States'.

And of course, your assertion is that legal definitions can NEVER change. Which is just useless nonsense. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If you change the definition of a marriage contract, then it is no longer a marriage contract, it is a fiction and gained nothing for the "homosexual" that could not be gained via a civil union contract, all that will be accomplished will be the destruction of a marriage contract. If you are capable of logic, look at it this way....

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract, its now marriage that includes gays. The marriage contract is fine...as it can accommodate a removal of same sex marriage bans just like it could accommodate a removal of interracial marriage bans.

You insist it can't be done. History demonstrates that it very much can. You don't know what you're talking about.

Please do cite where I stated that YOUR 14 th amendment does not apply to Tennessee while we remain under occupation.

Please cite where Tennessee claims to be under 'Occupation'. As you citing yourself is meaningless gibberish.

And Tennessee ratified the 14th amendment. According to who? According to Tennessee.

"Tennessee became the third state to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, before any other Southern state and earlier than most Northern states."

http://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/07-08/41-A History of Tennessee.pdf

You say 'uh-uh'. Who gives a shit? Not me. Not the courts. And clearly not even Tennessee.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And just because the 14th was cited by your occupational court in Tennessee in relevant cases to that amendment does not mean that your illogical equation to "gay marriage" is in any way relevant, as I have already explained but obviously went way over your head and ability to grasp simple logic as to why YOUR 14th does not apply to your lil fiction.

And who says its an 'occupational court', my little batshit secessionist?

There's you. Citing you. Which means nothing, as you don't know what you're talking about.

So far, you haven't given me a single reason to give a fiddler's **** what you imagine.

You are too base and simple minded.
You ask.....
"Please cite where Tennessee claims to be under 'Occupation'. As you citing yourself is meaningless gibberish."
I will give you the proof of the occupation even though I know that this is all way beyond you intellectual ability to comprehend....

On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union.

Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
Here we see that the occupation begins by the forced removal of Elected officials and their being replaced by the occupiers appointees.
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions.

No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
Here again we see proof of the occupation in that the people were denied the right of suffrage.
With the people of Tennessee not being allowed the right to vote.....
William Gannaway Brownlow was elected Governor on March 4, and he took office on April 5, 1865.

The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.

This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.
The Convention met in Nashville on January 10, and elected General John C. Brown of Pulaski as its president. This act clearly violated Section XXIV, of the 1796 Declaration of Rights: ". . . that in all cases the military shall be in strict subordination to civil authority" by placing a military official in charge of developing a new government for Tennessee. :
Clearly the convention of 1869 operated under duress.

Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]
Again, I do realie that all of this info goes way above your ability to comprehend, however it is proof of the occupation, and the length of such and the indoctrination into such does not discount such FACT.
If the Government that was put in place via coercion and duress, then the court system that is the result of that poison fruit is also a part of the occupation. The simple fact is that all since 1865 is built on a fiction of the founders' intent and is the result of the poison fruit of Lincolns rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution. Simply because you are unable to comprehend the truth and factual evidence does not make me "Bat Shit Crazy", it simply points to the fact that you are ignorant concerning history and YOUR own CONstitutional system.
Now back to my challenge to you and your ignorant lil cheerleader.....
Please explain to us so that we can further show your ignorance the two systems that were cobbled together to make YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution and how each operates as well as which departments represent each of those systems.
And please stop avoiding this challenge.
And lets not forget my more simplistic questions of.....
Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?
Or
Is here any of those articles still in force?
If so: Which ones?
This is truly enjoyable.

 

[James Everett]

How adorable that James Everett and Where r my Keys think they are authorities, though they have offered nothing other than their theories.

All they have left is "I think it is icky."

Oh but simply because YOU deny the facts that I have stated does not mean they do not exist.
I did not give you a hypothesis, I gave you facts and citation.
You do know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?
I somehow doubt it by your lack of understanding that my citations are proof.

 

[James Everett]

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"

Meanwhile, in the real world, couples in loves are legally marrying by the thousands in California

I don't care about what California allows concerning "Gay Marriage" anymore that I care what Syria allows concerning "Gay Marriage" Neither are Tennessee

Bully for you- I really don't care what odd fantasies you have about the South Rising Again either.
But meanwhile in California- thousands of happy couples in love are getting married- which is wonderful progress.

Yes I agree....
Thousands of men and women in California are contracting a marriage between themselves under the true definition of a marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman, and yes there are many men contracting with other men, and women contraction with other women, under the fiction that they believe they are married, when in fact they have contracted a civil union, however a million people calling a dog a cat, does not make a dog a cat, nor do nine political appointees rendering their opinion that a dog is a cat, make a dog a cat, they have only established a fiction for fools to accept. And yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

 

[Montrovant]

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.