Jonathan, the first phrase of the Second Amendment is merely the justification for the second phrase.

I entirely agree with your reading of the Bible that Jesus forbade divorce.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

and think it means that:

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Anyways, back to the topic of Vern McKinley, if he claims to be a Christian, he surely knows that Jesus’ feminist teachings departed radically from the understanding of the institution of traditional marriage of the day.

“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
Matt 19:1-3 KJV

I am debating your assertion that home rule is unconstitutional. You continue to try to put the onus on me, rather than accept responsibility for your own ludicrous declaration.

The ball remains in your court to back up your incredible statement. In light of your abject failure to do so, I would suggest that you tuck your tail between your legs, and quietly go away.

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt 19:4-5)

So, which of you is the female? Which of you is the wife?

I’m already married, thanks. I Did not understand your “abominated” comment. I think you meant to say that we will live “Obamanated” for eight years after Barack wins in November.

G. Stone,

Thanks for noticing. Did I ever tell you that I think you’re a swell guy!

You mention the Safe Schools Act. Were the parts struck down by the courts constitutional BEFORE they were struck down? Of course not. The court did not CAUSE them to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, a lack of a ruling on Home Rule does not make it constitutional, either. I have stated my position, which is that the word “exclusive” precludes Congress’ abrogating that power.

Now, using the Constitution, and your (admittedly limited) knowledge of English, and your (even more limited) logical faculties, tell me how you would argue, as a lawyer before the Supremes, that Home Rule is constitutional.

Yes, I did read Jack’s post, but it smacked of “it’s unconstitutional because I believe the Constitution says it is.

I am talking about home rule, established by an act of Congress, not “ham sandwiches”, or not just “anything”. I am talking about LAW.

As the Home Rule Act, which is LAW, has not been overturned, (or challenged for that matter), it remains with the assumption of constitutionality until a court rules otherwise. Another example, the Safe Schools Act of 1990. It stood as law until parts of it were challenged and struck down by the courts. If what you say is true, Heller would not be in front of SCOTUS would it ? And yes, sometimes the court does overturn a prior court ruling.

Again jacob, jack, stop wandering off into the weeds, and answer my prior question “When and where was home rule found to be unconstitutional?”.

We ignored him the whole time until you gave him recognition. I now feel obliged to give him comment. Jonathan, once N.Y. recognizes all the homosexual marraige licsences from Ca. and Mass., we want you to go there for the other “if I were a republican girl” (you know, Bloomers-burg) and get a date with him. Oh, yes. He is flakey just like you. Then you both can get married and live abominated ever after.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union….” (Article IV, Sec 3, Clause 1.)

No vote by the states is required.

I will try. I’m a white male conservative christian red-blooded American gunowner so you can already see that I am severely handicapped!

When a territory or protectorate (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands) do their votes for wanting/not wanting statehood; if it is determined thru votes that the citizens of that (we’ll say) territory WANTS statehood, doesn’t it go for a vote amongst the individual states of the U.S. for the privelage of becoming a NEW state? Or is this process done thru Congress WITHOUT consent or will of the PEOPLE? In other words, what is the process and how much, if any, involvement do U.S. citizens have in this process?

Is that understandable to you?

I do not think I understand your question about statehood. Could you rephrase it, please?

I thought home rule was given by the congress to D.C.. If so, don’t they have the right to take it back? And if it ever comes to a point of statehood, don’t the individual states get to vote on that ratification? I don’t know. Just asking.