On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:15:10 GMT, Deadrat wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote in
> news:1p2pj2qdwrmi3$.1sv2ods7p9wkb.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:07:57 -0500, johnny@. wrote:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "johnny@." wrote in
>>>> news:T4_Ul.5233$Xl4.1130@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "krp" wrote in
>>>>>> news:InZUl.172$u86.19@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Deadrat" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:HiZUl.31007$yr3.12655@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The BOR speaks of persons, not citizens. My claim is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the BOR applies to non-citizens (who are clearly persons),
>>>>>>>>>>>> those here legally and those here illegally. My claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the courts operate in just this fashion, at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ratbrain - you CLAIM that it says it applies to EVERYONE.
>>>>>>>>>>> I said show me where it says that.
>>>>>>>>>> I've told you: according to the Supreme Court, it applies to
>>>>>>>>>> everyone. Even to EVERYONE. At least the fundamental, basic
>>>>>>>>>> human-rights parts. Certainly due process and equal
>>>>>>>>>> protection.
>>>>>>>>> We will GET to case law and your EXPERT reading of it. YOU
>>>>>>>>> claimed
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> it was IN the BILL OF RIGHTS. I challenegd you on that several
>>>>>>>>> times, you INSISTED it WAS in there. I asked you specifically
>>>>>>>>> to QUOTE where you find the words to support your claim that it
>>>>>>>>> applies to "EVERYONE" within the Constitution OR the Bill of
>>>>>>>>> Rights. Now you are tap dancing. Care to admit that it is not
>>>>>>>>> IN the BOR yet Ratbrain?
>>>>>>>> I've already said that the word "everyone" is not in the text of
>>>>>>>> the BOR. I've also said that I'm not interested in word games.
>>>>>>>> The fundamental protections of the Constitution apply to
>>>>>>>> everyone under its jurisdiction. If you think that's a radically
>>>>>>>> new claim from me, then fine. Let's move the discussion onto
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Oh yes you ARE interested in playing word games. It's what
>>>>>>> you do. AT
>>>>>>> first you INSISTED that "EVERYONE" was in the Constitution. When
>>>>>>> challened after a few rounds you them claimed it was in the BOR.
>>>>>>> WHen challened on that - you have now sgtarted to claim it is in
>>>>>>> MANY MANY MANY case law decisions. So give me a complete
>>>>>>> citgation where the decison of SCOTUS says EXACTLY that,
>>>>>>> Ratbrain. Not something YOU read as sahying it. But show me a
>>>>>>> DECISION where SCOTUS says that the Constitution applioes to
>>>>>>> "EVERYONE."
>>>>>> The Constitution applies to everyone within its jurisdiction.
>>>>>> Tell me what doesn't apply and whom you think it doesn't apply to.
>>>>>> Let's work up a list. Why don't we start with the 8th Amendment?
>>>>>> Does that apply to everyone? Excuse me, to EVERYONE?
>>>>> Let's start with the fourteenth amendment.
>>>>
>>>> OK. Citizenship by birth in the country; equal protection and due
>>>> process of laws.
>>>>
>>>>> As far as citizenship, it
>>>>> doesn't apply to the children of diplomats. It also doesn't apply
>>>>> to the children of an invading army.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you see this anywhere in The Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It's in the 14th Amendment: "subject to the jurisdiction
>>>> thereof" Who's not subject to the jurisdiction of the law? As you
>>>> mentioned, diplomats aren't subject to our laws de jure via treaty.
>>>> An invading army wouldn't be subject to our laws de facto. Surely,
>>>> you're not going to join krp in his refrain of "I don't see the
>>>> exact wording in the Constitution."
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be an expert on The Constitution, and law,...
>>
>> He is not.
>
> That's right. I'm a student, though. Try it.
>
>> He had even stated "We the People of the U.S." to be the
>> original, "long dead," signers of the U.S. Constitution "long dead".
>
> "We the people ... do ordain and establish." Present tense. The framers
> were talking about themselves and their contemporaries. We the people
> today have inherited the Constitution; we didn't establish it.
The issue was never who "established" it rather than the U.S. Constitution
being predicated on the stated "We the People of the U.S." as citizens.
Weasel that you are, you shifted to "established" even as if some bigwigs
just happened to get together to invent the U.S. Constitution and, once
signed by them, "establish" the U.S. Government.
The framers were the delegates assigned by the states' assemblies
(congresses of "We the People") to attend the Continental Convention to
state the very need and reason for being of the U.S. Constitution (the
Preamble) and then formulate how best to achieve and institute that stated
objective for ratification.
To create a new nation by and for "We the People of the U.S.."
Not a mere "jurisdiction."
>> He even cited "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197US11, 22 (1905): The
>> preamble neither gives nor restricts powers mentioned in the
>> Constitution itself" in a case about compulsory vaccination and
>> absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution supposedly not
>> stating what a U.S. citizen as the U.S. Constitution clearly
>> understands and states what an American citizen is as "We the People
>> of the U.S." and obviously not anyone and everyone else.
>
> This is incoherent even by your standards. Try to concentrate: 1) The
> preamble has no force of law. Not my statement, but the Supreme Court's.
> 2) The 14th Amendment tells us who are born citizens.
The 14th amendment tells us former slaves were thenceforth of "We the
People of the U.S." (citizens).
The U.S. Constitution also recognizes "immigration" and the need for
immigration law: to add or not to the numbers of "We the People of the
U.S." according to "We the People of the U.S." and not any "We the People"
of any other national government.
"" |