Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree138Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:21 PM   #11
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,998
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
If the 14th Amendment was a game changer, why didn't the 39th Congress know that? While contemplating that, explain why the due process and equal protection clause was rewritten four times over the stated concern that it could be interpreted as encroaching on federalism.
You may want to throw in why the first generation Supreme Court also knew nothing of this game changer, and why only 20th century Supreme Courts had this special insight of the meaning that eluded the men who wrote it and the first generation Supreme Court.
Yawn.

It's funny how judges and lawyers across the land get what you refuse to admit.
Of course conservatives want to demand that past understanding (or rather your undocumented claim as to past understanding) is written in unchanging stone.

You predictably dodged a significant point...
Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?
Thanks from RNG, Camelot and Lyzza
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:25 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Yawn.

It's funny how judges and lawyers across the land get what you refuse to admit.
Of course conservatives want to demand that past understanding (or rather your undocumented claim as to past understanding) is written in unchanging stone.

You predictably dodged a significant point...
Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?
Can you make and argument or not?

Give me one sentence or one word that would remotely imply that the Constitution would require a state to protect freedom of speech after you figure out what the Bill of Rights are.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:28 PM   #13
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Can you make and argument or not?
Give me one sentence or one word that would remotely imply that the Constitution would require a state to protect freedom of speech after you figure out what the Bill of Rights are.
I've seen through your schtick a LONG time ago.
You love to make mostly irrelevant demands but you're very incapable of answering even simple questions which expose the fallacy of your position.

I already posited a point which you are continuing to ignore while you demand everybody cater to your inane demands.

Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?

Hell. Can you even admit that your previous argument would invalidate Loving v Virginia and allow miscegenation laws to persist across this land?


And after that, you need to provide evidence to your claim that the 39th Congress didn't recognize the 14th amendment as a game changer.


Now go ahead and pull your usual JimmyB routine and ignore everything I've said while you demand others acquiesce to pointless regurgitation that is discounted by legal practitioners...
Thanks from Lyzza
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:31 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I've seen through your schtick a LONG time ago.
You love to make mostly irrelevant demands but you're very incapable of answering even simple questions which expose the fallacy of your position.

I already posited a point which you are continuing to ignore while you demand everybody cater to your inane demands.

Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?


And after that, you need to provide evidence to your claim that the 39th Congress didn't recognize the 14th amendment as a game changer.


Now go ahead and pull your usual JimmyB routine and ignore everything I've said while you demand others acquiesce to pointless regurgitation that is discounted by legal practitioners...
You little coward. You have a bag of nothing and are a waste of time.
Thanks from caconservative and excalibur
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:39 PM   #15
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,998
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
You little coward. You have a bag of nothing and are a waste of time.
You're devolving to insults and name calling to avoid the issues...
Come on JB. TRY for a straight forward answer to substantiate your position instead of the incessant demands for obfuscatory questions...

Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?

Hell. Can you even admit that your previous argument would invalidate Loving v Virginia and allow miscegenation laws to persist across this land?


And after that, you need to provide evidence to your claim that the 39th Congress didn't recognize the 14th amendment as a game changer.
Thanks from RNG and Lyzza
foundit66 is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:43 PM   #16
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
The First Amendment still to this day says "Congress shall make no law". That has never been amended. Period.


Thanks from Jimmyb and caconservative
excalibur is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:44 PM   #17
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
You little coward. You have a bag of nothing and are a waste of time.

Bingo!


Thanks from Jimmyb and caconservative
excalibur is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:46 PM   #18
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post

So the feds should impose their view of marriage on the states, but not impose their view of marijuana, or drugs, on those same states?



Thanks from Jimmyb
excalibur is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 06:50 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You're devolving to insults and name calling to avoid the issues...
Come on JB. TRY for a straight forward answer to substantiate your position instead of the incessant demands for obfuscatory questions...

Do you contest that from your commentary, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?

Hell. Can you even admit that your previous argument would invalidate Loving v Virginia and allow miscegenation laws to persist across this land?


And after that, you need to provide evidence to your claim that the 39th Congress didn't recognize the 14th amendment as a game changer.
I am not devolving [sic], which is the wrong word, I am calling you what you are: you know less than nothing about the Constitution, law, and history, and you were outclassed, again, the second you chimed in on a subject that it so far out of your league you could not see it with the Hubble telescope.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 07:15 PM   #20
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The First Amendment still to this day says "Congress shall make no law". That has never been amended. Period.
Completely ignores the point being made...
It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law.
That's a FEDERAL constitution talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONGRESS.
JimmyB was trying to make an ignorant claim "Only the parties in the Sixth Circuit's ruling are bound by the ruling, and that is not even constitutionally correct. No where in the Article III or Article VI can is the power for the Supreme Court to rule on a state law or state constitutional amendment regarding marriage."

To draw you a map, the first amendment doesn't say that the STATE legislatures can't make such a law...
In fact, I can give you examples of where they DID make such laws after the first amendment was in effect.
But of course, JimmyB ignores that as he clings to anybody who will bolster his claim. Even when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're butting into the middle of...

I'll ask you the same question I asked him. You too can avoid it if you want.
Do you contest that from JimmyB's comments, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I am not devolving [sic], which is the wrong word, I am calling you what you are: you know less than nothing about the Constitution, law, and history, and you were outclassed, again, the second you chimed in on a subject that it so far out of your league you could not see it with the Hubble telescope.
I can't hear you over the sound of laughter in recognizing that nobody cares about your ignorant claims which no judge is putting into effect anywhere in this great nation...

At the end of the figurative day, Moore's arguments will be tossed to the curb and all you'll have is your righteous indignation and faux arguments...
Thanks from Lyzza

Last edited by foundit66; January 6th, 2016 at 07:18 PM.
foundit66 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
alabama, blocking, chief, issues, justice, licenses, marriage, order, samesex



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama intangible child Current Events 11 February 16th, 2015 05:23 PM
Mississippi KKK Chapter Backs Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore In Anti-Gay Marriage Fi LongWinded Current Events 38 February 14th, 2015 06:22 PM
Alabama's Anti Sharia Law Bill Shoots Down Judges Anti Marriage Equality Order skews13 Current Events 0 February 12th, 2015 12:14 PM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict The White House The White House 0 May 14th, 2014 07:20 AM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation The White House The White House 0 March 6th, 2014 05:22 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.