Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Skylar]

If you have an argument to make, make it. But you're gonna need evidence. As you citing you is woefully unreliable.

As you demonstrated when you laughably and fallaciously claimed that no one in the 39th congress said that the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States.

Show us. Don't tell us.

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

 

[dpr112yme]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right but having the opportunity of taking your case all the way up to the Supreme Court is. LBGT was being funded by someone or some groups to have them go from State to Supreme Court rulings.

In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 3] became the first country to permit same-sex marriages.[82] Since then same-sex marriages have been permitted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[83] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[84] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010),[85] Denmark (2012),[nb 1] Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), New Zealand[nb 4] (2013), the United Kingdom[nb 5] (2014), Luxembourg (2015), the United States[nb 6] (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016).[86] Same-sex marriage is to become legal in Finland on 1 March 2017. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are performed in a number of states and recognised in all thirty-one states. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[87]

Yes, even France is gay marriage friendly. Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If governments are more interested in allowing persons to decide what they want to do with their lives in regards to their sexuality, where would government come in? Which sectors in daily living would the government be needed in? If each Constitution is being reworked and regrounded, then why even need a government? Probably for the international trades and international monetary necessities. So maybe the government will soon turn into a body which helps the individual people of the nation be able to have unrestricted fun, per se and the government will be doing the international monetary transactions. And so if someone does not want to partake in the governmental 'freedoms' to society, the person is allowed to not participate and should seek another place to live if what is occurring around their neighborhood is becoming too offensive for some reason. Noise pollution can be seen as offensive also. But here is the flip side. If Government wants to allow all freedoms to be unrestricted with protective bodies and legalities, why are they infringing their ideas into the school systems where children to other adults attend? What people do, after the age of majority is reached, is then considered an adult decision. But children under the age of 18 cannot have things forced upon them, in schools or in other institutions without giving their parents a way to continue providing for their children's welfare, if the parents should decide to not agree with the system.

Children in schools should not be forced into reciting a muslim prayer or a muslim statement. Just as the children should not be forced to learn about any other thing their parents do not want them to learn. STD'S and sex ED is a private matter between parents and their children and parents have just as much right to have their children taught what they want instead of having muslim prayers taught to them

Why are you responding to yourself?

not really responding to myself. More like continuing the thought.

 

[Tennyson]

How about that Blaine Amendment?

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Why did the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment?

The same congressmen from. James Blairs was from the 39th Congress.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

 

[Skylar]

How about that Blaine Amendment.

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

 

[Tennyson]

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment. So again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

Now for a third question you will not answer:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

 

[Skylar]

You're claiming that the 39th congress proposed the Blaine Amendment?

Are you sure you want hang your hat on that?

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

 

[Tennyson]

I did not say that.

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

 

[Skylar]

You said the members of the 39th congress proposed the Blaine amendment.

But they didn't. This is why I demand evidence to back your claims. Because you're wildly unreliable. At best, you don't know what you're talking about. At worst, you're lying.

Sigh.....Tenny, you're pointlessly burning credibility now.

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

 

[Tennyson]

I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment.

Except when you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Except when you did:

Again, we can all read what you wrote. There's no point in denying it. And you demonstrate again why you citing you is meaningless gibber jabber.

Tell us, when was the Blair Amendment proposed? Give us the year. It will clue you in rapidly to your folly.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

 

[Tennyson]

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose the Blaine Amendment.

Of course you did:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged the last two questions. The second dodge was a fantastic evasive trick under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

 

[Skylar]

Of course you did:

Every time you deny it, I just quote you. The 39th congress did not propose the Blaine Amendment. That would be the 44th Congress.

My question is the answer to your own: When was the Blaine amendment proposed? The date is significant....and you know why. Which is why you're avoiding it.

And on a related note, when were the Slaughter House cases decided? You know, the case generally regarded as one of the worst rulings the US Supreme Court ever made?

You know the answer to both questions. But you'll keep running.....because you know they thoroughly answer your question.

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then. With evidence. And a verifiable date of introduction to the House.

 

[Tennyson]

You can play your jejune semantics game with the unsophisticated regarding American history and law. They will not work with me and your attempt to shift the dialogue away from the substance of my posts will not work either.

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

Again, I did not say the members of the 39th Congress proposed the amendment. I asked why the same congressmen from the 39th Congress proposed the Blaine Amendment.

You seem to be deficient in history. Blaine, Stewart, Lawrence, Banks, Frelinghuysen, et al. were all members of the 39th Congress.

As I predicted, you have dodged all my questions. The second and third dodges were fantastic evasive tricks under the guise of sophomoric semantics.

When the Blaine Amendment was proposed is irrelevant for two reasons: It is a carbon copy of the proposed 16th Amendment, and the Blaine Amendment was proposed because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Here is a recap of the last two questions you have avoided:

Why would a congressman from the 39th Congress propose a 16th amendment applying the First Amendment to the states four years before the Blaine Amendment and three years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Again, why would the same congressmen from the 39th Congress propose incorporating the First Amendment if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights?

Here is another question you will not answer:

What were Saulsbury’s and other Senators reactions when Wilson introduced S.R. 3 regarding disarming the state’s militias and what two Supreme Court cases in the 19th century supported Saulsbury’s resistance?

You asked this:

Why did the same members of the 39th Congress propose an amendment to in incorporate the First Amendment if they incorporated it in the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Skylar]

Sequence is immediately relevant. What came first.....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

You know what the answer is. You know why its relevant. And you know why you're running.

Spoiler Alert: I know why you're running too.

You asked this:

Every time you deny it...I just quote you. And the 39th congress didn't propose the Blaine Amendment. That didn't happen until the 44th Congress.

Which you knew. But really hoped we didn't.

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

 

[Tennyson]

What is your point?

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment.

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

 

[Skylar]

You know exactly what my point is. Now answer the question:

Which came first....the Slaughter House cases or the Blaine Amendment?

The 39th congress wasn't in 1871. But ended in 1867. With the 14th ratified in 1868.

Now......riddle me this. What happened between 1868 and 1875 when you indicate the Blaine Amendment was proposed?

C'mon, say it. You know you wanna say it.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

 

[Tennyson]

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

This is the easiest evidence.

All the answers are in my post.

The Slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment. The amendment was a pet project of Grant's. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years before the Blaine Amendment. The Slaughterhouse cases were two years after the proposed 16th Amendment to make the states subject to the First Amendment. If the congressional members who were in the 39th Congress understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1871, then the same men understood that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights in 1875 and the Slaughterhouse cases were irrelevant as they were in between the proposed 16th Amendment and the Blaine Amendment

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett?

Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases.

Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:

SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Skylar]

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

This is the easiest evidence.

So according to you, the Slaughterhouse Cases were 'in between the proposed 16th amendment and the Blaine Amendment'?

Which means, per your interpretation, the 'proposed 16th amendment' isn't the Blaine Amendment.

Quote the 'proposed 16th amendment' for us, then.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett?

Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases.

Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:

SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, after the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified. Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument.

Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.

Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.

Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you.....citing yourself.

Sigh....again.

 

[Tennyson]

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

This is the easiest evidence.

Nothing is according to me. It is a matter of historical record when the 16th Amendment was proposed in 1871 and the Blaine Amendment of 1875. The 1871 amendment attempted to apply the First Amendment to the states. The amendment was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress. The slaughterhouse cases had nothing to do with the Blaine Amendment and there was no mention of the slaughterhouse cases and no mention by Blaine, who was a member of the 39th Congress. The Blaine Amendment was started by a speech by Grant in 1875, and there was also no mention of the slaughterhouse cases or the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

Please do so now.

As the Blaine amendment wasn't proposed in 1871. Nor was it proposed by the 39th congress. You've moved your goal posts.

I never said the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1871; I stated 1875. I never stated it was proposed by the 39th Congress either. I stated that it was proposd by a member of the 39th Congress, and that member was Blaine.

It is remarkedly easy to produce the 1871 amendment. If you are asking, you shouldn't be engaging me on the subject.

If it was remarkably easy to produce the 1871 amendment, you would have done so. You didn't. You gave me excuses instead, insinuating an argument you clearly can't back factually.

Lets try this again:

Quote this 'proposed 16th amendment in 1871' and establish through evidence that it was proposed in 1871.

And as always, you citing yourself isn't evidence. Proceed.

Do you want the December 19, 1871 proposed amendment by Stewart or the April 19, 1871 proposed amendment proposed by Burdett?

Here are the two amendments attempting to apply the First Amendment to the states. Both are before the Slaughterhouse cases and both are identical to the Blaine Amendment in content, which was after the Slaughterhouse cases.

Burdett's April 19, 1870 proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Stewart's December 19, 1871 proposed amendment:

SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.

SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, after the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified. Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument.

Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.

Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.

Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you.....citing yourself.

Sigh....again.

How many questions have you dodged so far? I will have to list all of them in the next post.

Burdett wasn't a representative until 1869, after the 14th amendment was proposed, written, introduced and ratified. Your claim was that the proposed amendment was made by 'members of the 39th congress'. Which Burdett was not. Making him and his proposals irrelevant to your argument.

I never stated that Burdett was a member of the 39th Congress. Your comment is irrelevant and a dodge.

Worse, I've reviewed the Congressional record for April 19th, 1870. There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Burdett. Nor any record of Rep. Burdett having said anything on that day. Nor the slightest mention of Burdett's 'intention' to apply the 1st Amendment to the States.

That is not my problem. The amendment applied the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.

Worse still, there's no mention of 'incorporating the 1st amendment' in any of his proposals. Or those by Stewart in 1871. It wasn't until the Blaine Amendment in 1875.....2 years AFTER the Slaughter House cases, that there was any mention of incorporating the 1st amendment.

There is no mention of incorporation in the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment was not even the final joint resolution.

The Burdett amendment, the Stewart amendment, the Blaine amendment, and the other Blaine amendment all had the same language, concept, and intent of applying the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.

The amendment applied the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.

Nor did Stewart argue that his proposed amendment incorporated the 1st Amendment upon the States. That would be you.....citing yourself.

There is no mention of incorporation in the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment was not even the final joint resolution.

The Burdett amendment, the Stewart amendment, the Blaine amendment, and the other Blaine amendment all had the same language, concept, and intent of applying the First Amendment to the states. It is not my problem that you do not know what the First Amendment is, what it means, its concept, or its limitation to the federal government.

 

[DOTR]

explain to me how it is constitutional to stop two people from getting married at all in any case?

It's not now that the USSC has redefined the definition of marriage.

Like when they 'changed the definition of marriage' in States with restrictions on interracial marriage?

All you're doing is arbitrarily labeling your favorite definition of marriage the 'one true definition'. And anything that doesn't conform to your arbitrary choice must be a 'change in the meaning of marriage.

But that's not actually an argument, as there's nothing sacrosanct about your personal preferences. Marriage has taken many, many forms. You choosing to ignore anything but your preference doesn't make the others magically disappear.

Silliness- marriage throughout history was never defined as union between 2 people of the same race, it was defined as a union between a man a woman. The race card you are playing is a legal/cultural difference specific to certain countries or cultures, not uniform in the commonly recognized definition. Perhaps you can expand your thinking to include countries and cultures outside of the US when considering the definition of marriage.

Marriage through out history has been all sorts of things. Its been the union of one man and many women. Or one man and one woman. Or a union of children. Its been defined by race, language, religion. Its been a union of equals. Its been grossly assymetrical where women were essentially property of their husbands. Its been a union that people entered into willingly. Its been arranged by parents or religious leaders regardless of consent.

The idea that the version of marriage most convenient to your argument is the only 'true' definition is demonstrable nonsense.

Marriage is, and always has been, whatever we say it is. We invented it. It exists to service our society. It is not, nor has ever been an immutable constant. But differs on the society, the time period, and time periods within the same society.

Making your 'one true and only definition of marriage' standard just arbitrary. And limiting no society, law or court in applying marriage in a fashion that is consistent with that society's values.

And we always said it is the lifetime union of a man and a woman. Always. That three or four or five justices say different, along with the Hollywood elite and various billionaires cannot change that.