4 ms·

You, sir, are completely delusional. Obscenity is NOT pornography. The case law says so. Instead of correcting your falsities, you persist in your delusions.

• _-david-_ 4y ago
  You clearly are not reading what I am posting. I am saying when the first amendment was written, porn was considered to be obscene. Please point to a case in the 1700s that shows that porn was protected by the first amendment. I am not suggesting porn is considered obscene in the modern times. Of course if you stopped insulting me and actually read what I said you would know that. Of course, attacking somebody is much easier than actually addressing the points they make. I fully agree my position on the 14th amendment is in the minority. However, I would mention that nobody interpreted it the way the majority does until decades after it was written. Surely, if the current opinion on it was the intention of the ratifiers, it would have been used that way in court cases shortly after the amendment was ratified. It wasn't used that way because no lawyer or judge thought that was what it meant. The radical position is the one that changed what it meant for their own political gains. Second, the Supreme Court is not consistent on their rulings. They think some rights are only partially incorporated and others are fully incorporated. The 14th amendment makes no distinction on that. How do you explain that? Without incorporated rights the states would need to protect any rights they saw fit to protect in their own laws and constitutions. This might lead to less rights. I assume states like California and New York would ban or heavily restrict guns. Ultimately, I think this would massively decrease the polarization in our country. If you like guns you would leave California. If you don't like guns you could move to California. We wouldn't be ramming down things like guns, abortions and what not onto everybody. The justices also seem to use it to push their own political views. To use guns as an example again, the conservative justices push for the 2nd amendment to be incorporated and the liberal justices don't. This is the case on all sorts of different issues. It is obvious you are not arguing in good faith. You cannot draw any conclusions on my support of the separate but equal doctrine based on anything I posted. At best, you can make an assumption on my views on the constitutionality of it. Just because I may, or may not, think something is constitutional does not mean I support or oppose it.