>>17620600
> 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.
none of that mentions anal sex. it says states can't violate federal statues created by congress in regards to discriminating against people or violating protections like the civil rights act or the ADA and states cannot pass laws that violate the bill of rights.
there is no federal law or constitution clause about sodomy, faggot marriage or baby murder so the scotus banning abortion bans and faggot marriage bans is judicial activism because they are doing something the constitution doesn't say and are just making shit up because they like to eat baby flesh and love sodomy
>>17620616
>Cruikshank was not
Cruikshank happened after the 14th amendment was written and gay anti gun judges chose not to apply incorporation against the states
>Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) - The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:
>It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

Which judge/court is responsible for the antitextualism legislate from the bench judicial activism bullshit the dems did for basically the entire 20th…