Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $7,815
8%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 8% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by PapaNew

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Drudge Has What They All Want

    05/09/2015 2:55:56 PM PDT · 4 of 20
    PapaNew to bryan999
    Drudge Has What They All Want

    Oh, you mean the TRUTH?

    They don't want the truth. THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

  • What Historical Event Should Be a Movie?

    05/08/2015 9:08:39 PM PDT · 49 of 146
    PapaNew to GrandJediMasterYoda

    It’s interesting. There’s a post & ping list that’s winding down about WWII daily events reported by the NYT 70 years ago. One of the things that’s come through is an extension of what seems to be a legacy of aloof and bumbling English military officers. Your post about Mutiny on the Bounty made me think that whole thing was another series of bungling British official acts (except for Bligh’s incredible journey).

  • What Historical Event Should Be a Movie?

    05/08/2015 8:55:28 PM PDT · 32 of 146
    PapaNew to MNDude

    After writing a book on mapping Matthew 24 with the Book of Revelation, I’m seriously wanting to do a movie on these end-of-the world-events. I know that is not technically history, but it might as well be, because it’s going to happen and soon.

    “Religious”, “Christian” movies tend to have a tinny, sort of wooden feel. I would want to do whatever I could to get top talent in the production with a compelling human drama in the foreground with these end-time events in the background.

  • 2 Maps That Explain The Baltimore Riots – 1968 And Now

    04/28/2015 5:39:32 PM PDT · 2 of 12
    PapaNew to bryan999

    To me, the best explanation was seeing a picture of the mayor.

    Zowie.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/27/2015 7:05:29 AM PDT · 178 of 251
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o

    Again you’re mixing what it takes to be eternally saved with what it takes to live a victorious Christian life. The easiest part of being a Christian is getting saved because Jesus has done it all. When you preach something other than the gospel of the grace of Christ for eternal salvation, you ignore the heart of the gospel of grace as spelled out in Romans 3:30-8:33, mislead others, and are in danger yourself as Galatians 1:6-9 warns.

    Bye bye.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 7:25:31 PM PDT · 139 of 251
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o

    Again you’re confusing what it takes to be saved and what it takes to live a victorious Christina life.

    We’re going around in circle and I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere with each other here.

    I think I’ve said all I can say to you.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 6:01:35 PM PDT · 133 of 251
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o
    A somewhat obscure verse like 2 Tim 2:2 that can be taken a number of ways does not outweigh in importance the tonnage of scripture that tells us we are saved by grace. Much confusion is generated by confusing the requirements of salvation with how God works in our lives.

    Galatians gives stern warning and a double curse to anyone including an angel from heaven who preaches "another gospel" than the gospel of grace (Gal 1:6-9). The whole book of Galatians revolves around correction and re-iterating justification by grace through faith, not by our works.

    The very heart of the New Covenant and the gospel is the book of Romans which is a detailed explanation of the gospel of grace:

    But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered (Rom 4:5-7).

    If you want to add conditions of salvation to yourself, then in the sense of God's FREE GIFT (x3) (Rom 5:15-18) to you, you are denying the eternal efficacy of the blood of perfect sacrifice of his Son for you on the cross. When we insist on our own self efforts for salvation, God can't do much for us, which is as much as anything what 2 Tim 2:2 means. But as the next verse says, if we do not believe, he remains faithful, he cannot deny himself. His Son's sacrifice still works eternal salvation in our lives.

    If you have received Jesus but live in fear because of some obscure demand you've put on yourself, you are still saved. God cannot undo the perfect and eternal sacrifice of his Son that you have received. You're just living short of the freedom and joy of the salvation which is yours.

    Everyone in Egypt who put blood on their doorposts and lintels were saved, but not all were without fear and trepidation. Same is true today for Christians. We have the fulness of his promise of salvation by grace, not works, and the angel of (eternal) death will pass over us. But some who do not believe, even though they have the blood of Jesus protecting them, needlessly live in fear through unbelief. They are still saved, but haven't yet learned they are not subject to requirements of the law or their own works.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 3:40:26 PM PDT · 127 of 251
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o
    Yes, God wants us to be victorious Christians and by his grace we can and will preserve through the trials of life.

    But that is NOT a condition of salvation. We are saved not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace (1 Tim 1:9) and as you have received him, so walk in him (Col 2:6). The perseverance of faith is to continue to believe and rest in Him as our wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor 1:30).

    But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (Heb 10:12) and God has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6).

    The Christian life is not "do" but "DONE". His work on the cross has perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb 10:14. IT IS FINISHED.

  • Ted Cruz: Democrats home to 'liberal fascism'

    04/26/2015 2:27:51 PM PDT · 22 of 41
    PapaNew to E. Pluribus Unum

    When are we going to drop the “liberal” misnomer (”liberal” means a lover of liberty) and simply say Democrats are home to fascism.

  • Stand up and Assert Sovereignty.

    04/26/2015 2:25:58 PM PDT · 3 of 8
    PapaNew to Jacquerie; cotton1706

    Yes, state sovereignty NOW in nullifying unconstitutional federal acts which are acts of tyranny, and later through a difficult but do-able Article V COC.

  • TRUMAN OPENS WORLD SECURITY PARLEY; RUSSIANS ENCIRCLE BERLIN, CROSS ELBE; 3D NEAR AUSTRIA (4/26/45)

    04/26/2015 1:56:24 PM PDT · 27 of 41
    PapaNew to colorado tanker

    Politics seems to takes on a life of its own sometimes.

    Still hard for me to take watching the western Allies not moving an inch and allowing the communists to surround Berlin and the country around Berlin as a result of what I consider to be convouted politics and Stalin out-negotiating FDR.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 11:25:55 AM PDT · 91 of 251
    PapaNew to St_Thomas_Aquinas

    Good works are fine but not the basis of our salvation. Jesus’ sacrifice is perfect and complete for all eternity. HE has paid the price for all the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 11:23:35 AM PDT · 90 of 251
    PapaNew to Mr Rogers

    That is telling us how we should live now that we have received Jesus, but none of it is a basis for our salvation.

    We are saved by grace, not by works, and there is no condition other than calling out on the name of Jesus (Rom 10:13). There’s been a change since the cross which many ignore, but the New Covenant declared Jesus sacrifice perfect and eternal and God does not hold our sins against us (Heb 8:12,10:17).

    We could go on and on like this but I’m not sure what good it will do. You are simply ignoring fact that Jesus has already paid for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), that God has done it all and IT IS FINISHED, and the terms of the New Covenant that declare he will not hold our sins against us because they were already fully judged on the body of His Son. For God to condemn Bruce after he has received Jesus is making God out to be an unjust liar.

    God has done it all and all that remains is for us to accept his FREE GIFT. You put repentance as you perceive it as the requirement, although thankfully, God does not. His only requirement is receiving His Son who has done it all.

    BTW, what is New Testament “repentance” anyway? It is “repentance from dead works”. What’s that? Dead works are your own righteousness and self effort to be accepted by God instead of letting Jesus’ perfect life and death be your substitute and your righteousness as a gift (Rom 5:17).

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 9:56:50 AM PDT · 71 of 251
    PapaNew to Mr Rogers
    The man who believes in the Son has eternal life.

    Right. If Bruce Jenner has received Jesus Christ, he has eternal life which cannot be taken away from him because our salvation is NEVER about what we do but because of what HE DID. It is by grace not works. Heb 8:12,10:17.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 9:26:46 AM PDT · 56 of 251
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o

    All of that is good, but our works are not the basis of our salvation. Our salvation is based on HIS works. So our salvation is by the grace of God through the perfect sacrifice of His Son.

    Once we get that, we can approach ourselves and others like Bruce Jenner with NO CONDEMNATION because God does not condemn us no matter what we do (Rom 8:1; Heb 8:12, 10:17).

    Bruce is not helping the cause of Christ IMO, so what he’s done is not helpful and is sin. We can judge the act but not the person. We have no right to go behind the blood of Jesus like Satan tries to, and judge he who Jesus died for.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 8:55:21 AM PDT · 48 of 251
    PapaNew to Mr Rogers

    Of course God hates sin and the demonstration of how much He hates sin is his exacting the full punishment and condemnation for every sin of every person on the body of his beloved Son. IT IS FINISHED.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 8:50:47 AM PDT · 45 of 251
    PapaNew to ClearCase_guy
    God does not remember our past sins, but if we continue to move into the future as willful sinners, I think that is a separate matter.

    I know you think that, but that is not what God says in the New Covenant of grace. The law, which we are no longer under, makes sense to us. That is why we hold on to it. But grace is hard for us to understand. We need God to help us and he will if we ask him.

    That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

    I cannot speak for God.

    Let Him speak for himself in his declaration of the New Covenant of grace in His blood.

    their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Heb 8:12,10:17.

  • Bruce Jenner Thinks Christ Accepts His Sex Change

    04/26/2015 8:01:51 AM PDT · 21 of 251
    PapaNew to CHRISTIAN DIARIST
    If Bruce has received Jesus Christ, he's a Christian. There are a lot of messed up, deceived Christians, even those who still live under the Old Testament law when the New Covenant of grace in his blood says we are not under the law but under grace (Rom 6:14). God promises in the New Covenant that he does not count our sins against us and does not remember them (Heb 8:12,10:17).

    For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Hebrews 10:14.

  • TRUMAN OPENS WORLD SECURITY PARLEY; RUSSIANS ENCIRCLE BERLIN, CROSS ELBE; 3D NEAR AUSTRIA (4/26/45)

    04/26/2015 7:42:27 AM PDT · 14 of 41
    PapaNew to Homer_J_Simpson
    WORLD SECURITY PARLEY

    "More what you call guidelines than actual rules."

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 4:28:53 PM PDT · 95 of 111
    PapaNew to Stand Watch Listen

    To bad Lincoln himself felt what he thought was important trumped the Constitution which he ignored to proceed as he wished.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 4:26:04 PM PDT · 91 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    I do believe in unalienable rights but nothing’s perfect and it is the pursuit of perfection the misguides so many and leads to unintended federal abuse, socialism, and tyranny.

    Freedom means everyone doesn’t have to abide by my moral code or your moral code. People can do what they want as long as they don’t interfere with another’s freedom. A happy, peaceful, and free society is never brought about by more federal power or even more state power - that is the direct opposite of freedom. But as the Founders wrote, sustained freedom is VERY dependent on the religion and “good manners” of the people.

    Thus the banning of prayer and the Bible in public schools while seemingly harmless at the time, has reaped disastrous effects and harm to our free way of life.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 4:07:26 PM PDT · 83 of 111
    PapaNew to Star Traveler

    Well, if it’s in the amendment itself, then of course it’s constitutional as soon as it’s ratified. I thought you were talking about some rule Congress had set up apart from the actual amendment itself.

    Again, an alternative that bypasses such limitations is the Article V COC process but it looks like Cruz want to show this going to Congress which is dangerous for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 3:53:49 PM PDT · 78 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    Under the states’ rule you don’t have to live in the South, so you are free to move to a state more to your liking.

    Under the feds, you are not free unless you move to another country which probably isn’t free either.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 3:33:44 PM PDT · 76 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    Nothing is perfect and the beauty of the local or state issue is you don’t have to live in the South or a state you don’t like. The feds force EVERYBODY into THEIR perverse mold.

    Jim Crow laws in a part of our country cannot compare to the nation-wide horrific bloodbath of 70-some million slaughtered unborn infants or the spiritual decline through banning prayer and the Bible in schools, among other things, all brought on by the feds. The feds are by far the greatest threat to our lives, liberties, and well being.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 3:19:53 PM PDT · 73 of 111
    PapaNew to Star Traveler; Jacquerie
    Congress has been setting time limits on approving Constitutional Amendments (maximum time), which has been seven years.

    If true, are these time limits constitutional? I don't see where the Constitution puts a time limit on ratifying a constitutional amendment, at least not the Article V convention of states amendment process. I suppose if nothing else, Cruz could submit it through the COC process.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 3:12:00 PM PDT · 72 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    Yes, the first ten amendments are pointed at the feds, not at the states. So, yes, theoretically the states can do what they want but there’s no such thing as a “state” per se, only the majority of the population of that state to decide the laws of that state either through their state representatives or directly through initiatives.

    And if you look at history and the “parade of horribles” I listed, you’ll see that the problem is almost never that the majority of the populace of the each state have perpetrated some horror on the state. The states are the ones with the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws and pro-gun rights laws. The problem is almost never the states but the feds unconstitutionally restricting the states.

    People need to get real clear about who the bad guys are. Our Founders knew and history speaks very plainly: the feds, not the states, are the greatest threat to our rights and freedoms.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 1:22:03 PM PDT · 56 of 111
    PapaNew to stanne

    Lemmeknow when you find out. :)

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 1:09:18 PM PDT · 54 of 111
    PapaNew to stanne

    Well, I’m still trying to figure out how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 12:44:21 PM PDT · 52 of 111
    PapaNew to stanne

    If legal immigration is illegal and illegal immigration is legal then what is illegal legal immigration?

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 12:40:54 PM PDT · 51 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    Sherman, you need to read my stuff more carefully. Where do you get that I’m using the first ten amendments to invalidate certain sate laws?? I said the feds have no constitutional power over the things mentioned in the first ten amendments

    Again, the first ten amendments are pointed directly at the feds, not at the states. They are a reminder of SOME of the things the feds can’t touch and the 14A does not give the feds enforcement power over them. Read post #38 when you have time.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 12:23:16 PM PDT · 41 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan

    I’m saying 180 degrees the opposite. Don’t know how you read that into what I said.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 12:21:13 PM PDT · 38 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan
    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Sounds like incorporation to me.

    It's not and it doesn't have to be repealed even though it was famously badly written. The 14A was a post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendment which along with the 13A and 15A was intended to fix problems with the ex-slaves.

    Below is a detailed Q&A argument posted earlier as to the original intent of the ratifiers of the 14A and why the Incorporation Doctrine should be repealed and made void:

    The flawed, so-called "Incorporation Doctrine" is one of the justifications used for federal interference with state abortion and marriage laws. Below is a discussion with some reasons why this incredible expansion of federal power is unconstitutional, unwarranted, and unwanted.

    Q: What is the basis for saying that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply only to former slaves?

    A: - The historical context of the post-civil war reconstruction period to instate the former slaves as full U.S. citizens with full rights as others.

    - The legal context of this being the middle of the three reconstruction amendments.

    - The lack of clear text that proves specific provision of unparalleled and massive expansion of federal power which would have been completely out of place from the purpose of these post-civil war reconstruction amendments and would have produced much evidence, of which there is none, of debate and discussion about such a radical departure from American governance, as noted below.

    - The weight of the probative value of accuracy and precedent in a SCOTUS case decided four years after the amendment was ratified versus 131 years later.

    - The intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters. Thomas’ argument rests on the drafters’ intent to apply Corfield v. Coryell rights. But as noted below, there is scant evidence this was intended by the ratifiers and it is the intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters, that counts.

    Judge Robert Bork, the generally recognized leading scholar on Constitutional Law of his time and most notably focused on original understanding and intent in construction, said this about the fourteenth amendment:

    "The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War, and all commentators are agreed that its primary purpose was the protection of the recently freed slaves. As we have seen, of the amendment's three clauses, two have been pressed into service of judicial imperialism - the due process and equal protection clauses - while the third, the privileges and immunities clause, has remained a cadaver that it was left by the Slaughter-House Cases. It is this corpse that [former dean of the Stanford law school] Ely [and apparently now Justice Thomas] proposes to resurrect.

    "The due process clause will not do as a warrant for the creation of new constitutional rights because, as Ely notes, it is simply a requirement that government not do certain things to people without fair procedures, not a statement of what things may not be done. The fifth amendment's due process clause, which applied only against the federal government, was later copied in the fourteenth amendment, which applied to the states. 'There is general agreement that the earlier clause had been understood at the time of its inclusion to refer to lawful procedures. What recorded comment there was at the time of replication in the fourteenth amendment is devoid of any reference that gives the provision more than a procedural connotation' (J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust (1980) at 105-16). That is true, and it is more than enough to condemn the hundreds of cases, stretching from Dred Scott to today, in which the courts have given the due process clause substantive content in order to read their own notions of policy into the Constitution.

    "Ely's attempt [and apparently Thomas' proposed attempt] to make the privileges and immunities clause do the work that has been improperly assigned to the due process clause is, however, unsuccessful. He points out that 'there is not a bit of legislative history that supports the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to be meaningless' (Id. at 103). That is hardly surprising. One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean.

    "Bingham and Howard meant these additional rights [taken from Corfield v. Coryell]. That the ratifiers did is far less clear. Certainly there is no evidence that the ratifying convention intended such power in judges, and it is their intent, not the drafters’, that counts. Nor is it easy to imagine the northern states, victorious in a Civil War that lead to the fourteenth amendment, should have decided to turn over to the federal courts not only the protection of the rights of freed slaves but an unlimited power to frustrate the will of the Northern states themselves. The only significant exercise of judicial review in the past century had been Dred Scott, a decision hated in the North and one hardly likely to encourage the notion that courts should be given carte blanche to set aside legislative acts.

    "Had any such radical departure from the American method of governance been intended, had courts been intended to supplant legislatures, there would be more than a shred of evidence to that effect. That proposal would have provoked an enormous debate and public discussion.

    "We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts. We know that a constitutional revolution of that magnitude would have provoked widespread and heated (to put it mildly) discussion but there is no record of any such discussion. The rather sweeping mandate must be judged counterfeit” (R. Bork, The Tempting of America (1990), excerpted at 180-83).

    And, therefore, in reference to Justice Miller’s opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Bork says, “ Miller was following sound judicial instinct: to reject a construction of a new amendment that would leave the Court at large in the field of public policy without any guidelines other than the views of its members. [ ] In a word, the history of the fourteenth amendment gave judges no guidance on any subject other than the protection of blacks. Beyond that, the Justices had nothing more to apply than their personal views. That, Miller thought, was reason enough to confine the amendment almost entirely to the subject of race” (id. at 37-38).

    Q: Under Bork's interpretation, a state could disarm its citizens and it would be entirely constitutional.

    A: Yes, but you miss some important issues.

    1) States are local governance, governed by the people of the state through the ballot by representation and directly by initiative and propositions. The majority of people of a given state are in control of what that state does as long as the feds don't interfere.

    2) History shows it is the FEDS who impose noxious and unconstitutional requirements on the states. History also shows that the states, left alone, generally are in harmony with the rights and freedoms of individuals. Easiest example is abortion. Before 1973, the states generally prohibited abortion. It was SCOTUS and their application of the 14A against the states that outlawed state anti-abortion laws, allowing the infanticide of some 70 million unborn. Another easy example is currently, the greatest pressure against gun ownership isn't the states, it's the feds.

    3) The freedom of states to run their own show, generally, is much more in line with the constitutional design of federalism. And, again, history tells us that the chances of a state disarming its citizens is much less likely than the feds forcing disarmament using the 14A as their club.

    Yes, Bork says that the intent of the P&I clause in the 14A is not understood which is basically what Justice Miller said. So both are on solid constitutional ground. You're concerned about the consequences, but consequences are not the driving force of construction, whereas original understanding and intent are. Consequences are more of a sanity check in the light of original intent and understanding.

    Here, the consequences are sublime in that the states represent smaller and more local and responsive governance keeping the federal government at bay and presumably within its constitutional limits where it belongs. Again, our greatest threat by far in this country is not the states, it is the $4 trillion bloated unconstitutional federal government that threatens out free way of life.

    Q: What does Bork say about the meaning of Privileges and Immunities of US citizens, as the terms were understood in the late 1860s?

    A: Well, if you are asking about the general understanding of the P&I Clause before the 14A, Bork says, "Most people have always thought that the article IV clause simply prevented a state from discriminating against out-of-staters in favor of their own citizens" (R. Bork, The Tempting of America at 181).

    If you are asking what the P&I Clause was intended to mean in the 14A, Bork says this about the P&I Clause: "One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean.”

    So his point is judges should not insert their own personal moral viewpoints of what THEY think a clause should mean where they have no guidance from original understanding of the text. He therefore approved Justice Miller's judicial restraint and "sound judicial instinct" in doing just that.

    Bork is inferring that, the history of the definition of P&I notwithstanding, there is not enough evidence to understand what and why they put P&I in the 14A. But there is PLENTY of reason conclude that no constitutional revolution was intended by the 14A. It seems that P&I in the 14A is a moot point that Thomas wants to resurrect to give "justifiable" life to the utterly discredited incorporation doctrine. Justice Miller saw that P&I in the 14A added nothing to P&I in Article IV, so it was a moot point as far as he was concerned.

    I agree with Bork and Miller and believe simply that the ratifiers were trying to put former slaves on equal footing with all U.S. citizens. Just guessing (something Bork, admirably, was loathe to do which is why he might have been one of our greatest Justices if he had been given the chance), my sense is the ratifiers were simply wanting to confirm that states could not discriminate against black out-of staters. In that sense, P&I in the 14A doesn't add anything, only confirms the full citizenship status of former slaves. But that's my opinion only, not a constitutional basis for construction. I sense it's probably Bork's also, but he was disciplined and discrete enough to keep his personal opinions separate from valid constitutional construction.

    Anyway, the argument is not about the historical definition of P&I. It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A. The P&I of Article IV is not so much about what P&I itself is so much as the P&I in one state is valid for out-of-staters. Beyond this is a "fundamental" flaw some have of understanding a basic presumption of the Constitution.

    The original body of the Constitution doesn't name specific "rights" or P&I's. It is well understood that those rights named in the so-called "Bill of Rights" were listed only to appease the anti-federalists so the Constitution could be ratified. Whatever rights, powers, and liberties not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or forbidden to the states by it belongs to "the States and the people respectively." The ninth and tenth amendments confirm that.

    So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don't have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I's are none of the feds business. Only discrimination of P&I by one state upon non-state citizens is a concern of the federal government.

    Justice Thomas and others want to ratify the "fundamental" rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A.

    There is no proof that is what the ratifiers intended by P&I. One’s conjecture is as good as another. Mine is that the ratifiers meant nothing more than to confirm former slaves had the same P&I as understood in Article IV among the states as any other U.S. citizen. In the sense of probability, mine is much more likely because the other argument would have resulted in a Constitutional revolution of which there would have been some record of the debates and discussions that would have ensued.

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 12:07:16 PM PDT · 23 of 111
    PapaNew to Sherman Logan
    Congress has no authority to force the courts to adopt a particular interpretation of the Constitution.

    Who says? Certainly not the Constitution. Research into the intent and understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers shows they expected all three branches to participate in constitutional knowledge and interpretation.

    The Supremacy Clause does not say the rulings of the Supreme Court are the law of the land but the "Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof" (Art VI Sec 2).

  • Ted Cruz submits constitutional amendment to protect marriage

    04/25/2015 11:38:44 AM PDT · 12 of 111
    PapaNew to SeekAndFind; aMorePerfectUnion; beaversmom; cloudmountain; cripplecreek; CyberAnt; DBeers; Fungi; ..
    NOTHING in the 14th Amendment allows the feds to interfere with ANYTHING except forced state segregation as decided by the Slaughterhouse Cases precedent.

    The "Incorporation Doctrine" is unconstitutional and should be rejected. A better bill would be to repeal the Incorporation Doctrine as unconstitutional and thus put the first ten Amendments back on their feet. The feds would have no pretended authority over anything mentioned in the first ten amendments including marriage.

    In the alternative, the danger of introducing a "marriage amendment" into Congress is that one way or the other almost certainly the original or amended wording will not be air-tight enough for the feds to construe some sort of power to enforce. That's all they need.

    Their pretended power to enforce the first ten amendments via the phony Incorporation Doctrine has lead to an unimaginable parade of horribles including banning prayer and the Bible in public schools, forced integration, affirmative action, and quotas, prohibiting state anti-abortion laws, interfering with individuals right to discriminate (freedom to choose), and attempting to overturn state anti-gay marriage laws.

    Better would be to slay the underlying lie of the Incorporation Doctrine and put the first Ten Amendments back on its feet.

  • “Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa” GoFundMe Page shut down (because "discrimination")

    04/25/2015 9:16:14 AM PDT · 34 of 70
    PapaNew to 1010RD

    The 99% problem is the feds who have long since abandoned their constitutional chains and limitations. The Constitution is pointed directly at the feds, not the states.

    The feds are behind almost every instance of wrongful and unconstitutional interference of our lives with a long list of horribles like banning prayer and the Bible in public schools, forced integration, “affirmative action” and quotas, prohibition of state anti-abortion laws, restraints on religious free exercise, and now, interfering with state anti-gay marriage laws and individuals’ rights to choose and discriminate.

    Focus on the feds. They are the BIG problem. Kill the unconstitutional 80% portion of the feds, and you’ve killed the beast.

  • “Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa” GoFundMe Page shut down (because "discrimination")

    04/25/2015 7:26:01 AM PDT · 4 of 70
    PapaNew to Mrs. Don-o

    Discrimination is nothing more or less than your God-given, inalienable right of you freedom to chose. The Constitution gives the feds no authority to interfere with your discrimination or your freedom to choose as an individual or company. Stand up and fight for your freedom.

  • Relaunched Congregation Grows in Movie Theater

    04/25/2015 7:12:20 AM PDT · 15 of 25
    PapaNew to OK Sun
    where it is safe to belong until you believe

    That's what caught my eye. Not a lot of churches like that.

  • At 67 Israel exudes long term optimism

    04/24/2015 7:46:29 PM PDT · 15 of 16
    PapaNew to caww

    I’ll see you there someday. :)

  • Zillow Ranks Best Real Estate Markets for Buyers, Sellers

    04/24/2015 4:22:31 PM PDT · 9 of 18
    PapaNew to dp0622

    You’re welcome. I’ll pray for you too. :)

  • Zillow Ranks Best Real Estate Markets for Buyers, Sellers

    04/24/2015 4:13:06 PM PDT · 7 of 18
    PapaNew to dp0622

    Pray about it my FRiend. You’re not married yet.

  • Zillow Ranks Best Real Estate Markets for Buyers, Sellers

    04/24/2015 3:50:05 PM PDT · 5 of 18
    PapaNew to dp0622

    If she’s not going to follow her fiance, how is she going to follow her husband?

  • Missouri Senate passes SCR 21!

    04/24/2015 1:42:19 PM PDT · 21 of 23
    PapaNew to cotton1706; Jacquerie; Publius

    God bless the COS project by CFSG. Moving like a snail, but hey, the turtle did beat the rabbit right? Only it’s easier to squish a snail than a turtle. Hope for the best.

  • At 67 Israel exudes long term optimism

    04/24/2015 7:41:25 AM PDT · 13 of 16
    PapaNew to caww

    Thanks. That WAS fun.

    Never been to Israel, hope to go there soon. Someday we’ll be spending a whole lot of time there. :)

  • Judicial Watch: State Department Documents Reveal Concern about Bill Clinton’s Activities

    04/23/2015 10:21:00 AM PDT · 3 of 25
    PapaNew to sheikdetailfeather

    It’s Hillary, right? Just like Obama, right? They elected Obama twice so it didn’t matter then, right? So now it’s Hillary and it doesn’t matter.

  • Obama Takes 'Full Responsibility' for Jan. Operation That Killed American, Italian Hostages

    04/23/2015 9:30:32 AM PDT · 3 of 35
    PapaNew to rktman

    He picks safe “ownership” spots.

  • At 67 Israel exudes long term optimism

    04/23/2015 9:17:01 AM PDT · 3 of 16
    PapaNew to Sean_Anthony

    Israel should be optimistic because it will soon be the literal center of the world (and universe) with the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ himself, ruling from Jerusalem as King of Kings and Lord of Lords for 1000 years (Rev 20:4).

    For 4000 years, all of Hell has tried to prevent this but they haven’t nor will they be able to destroy Israel. But just before His reign on earth, Israel will suffer the most terrible trouble and persecution it has ever faced including the holocaust. But in the end, Israel triumphs because God is with her.

  • See The Constitution While You Still Can

    04/23/2015 9:04:59 AM PDT · 32 of 32
    PapaNew to MrB

    Yes. It suggests ownership and also that we have a duty as well as a right to defend against the invasions of tyranny by our own government. The application today is the people via the states rejecting unconstitutional federal acts because they are acts of tyranny.

  • See The Constitution While You Still Can

    04/23/2015 8:58:41 AM PDT · 31 of 32
    PapaNew to Jacquerie

    Thanks for the insight.

  • See The Constitution While You Still Can

    04/23/2015 7:30:29 AM PDT · 30 of 32
    PapaNew to Publius

    FYI, a little more of my opinion on the Second Amendment and Bork...

    The first ten amendments do not actually amend the body of the Constitution. They are instead confirmations of certain rights the anti-federalists insisted be put in before ratification because the anti-federalists believed the new government would ignore the Constitutional presumptions and simply commandeer all of our rights.

    Many think the first ten amendments are a bill of rights. They are not. Totalitarian states issue “bills of rights”. The first ten amendments are simply a sampling and iteration of certain individual rights as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm.

    This is where is find myself sometime disagreeing with Bork (even though Bork does a masterful job of refuting the Incorporation Doctrine regarding the first ten amendments).

    Having said this here and in the previous reply, and without deciding before more investigation, because the right of the people to bear arms is not prohibited in the body of the Constitution, the second amendment simply confirms that right “shall not be infringed”, the “militia” thing notwithstanding.

    As I said, no one’s perfect even though many here look for that. However, Bork is one of the best when it comes to constitutional interpretation. I wish every American would read the Constitution and his commentaries. It would not only stop the feds in their tracks, but would probably do a lot to get the feds back into their constitutional cage.

  • See The Constitution While You Still Can

    04/23/2015 7:07:19 AM PDT · 28 of 32
    PapaNew to MrB

    That is interesting. Life, Liberty, and free pursuits are ours whether we or anyone else likes it or not.