"GeekBoy" wrote in message
news:SIzVl.87$BG6.60@newsfe20.iad...
> Deadrat wrote:
>> GeekBoy wrote in
>> news:MKkVl.119$ke5.53@newsfe18.iad:
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "johnny@." wrote in
>>>> news:SH%Ul.5271$Xl4.3339@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "johnny@." wrote in
>>>>>> news:T4_Ul.5233$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,
>>>> I think you mean "expert."
>>>>
>>>>> so who decided that the children of diplomats, and the children of an
>>>>> invading army
>>>>> born in this country, are not citizens? Was it the people that wrote
>>>>> The Constitution?
>>>> The authors of the 14th Amendment decided on the wording "subject to
>>>> the jurisdiction thereof." When 2/3 of each house of Congress and
>>>> 3/4 of the state legislatures approved of the amendment, it became
>>>> part of the Constitution. Presumably everyone voting had some idea
>>>> of what it meant.
>>>>> Was it the Supreme Court?
>>>> Whatever the ratifiers thought it meant, it's the Supreme Court that
>>>> issues the final judgment on the meaning.
>>>>
>>>>> Was it Congress?
>>>> Congress' role is restricted by the separation of powers and the
>>>> amendment itself to passing authorizing legislation. Congress may
>>>> not issue an interpretation of the amendment.
>>>>
>>>>> Where did just these two exceptions come from?
>>>> These two exceptions follow from the definition of "jurisdiction." If
>>>> you're subject to the law, then you're under its jurisdiction.
>>>> Diplomats with immunity and invaders clearly are not subject to the
>>>> law.
>>>>> Can others be added to it?
>>>> Of course. All you have to do is find some other class of person not
>>>> subject to the law. Before Indians were granted US citizenship, they
>>>> were citizens (only) of their own nations on the reservations
>>>> recognized by treaty. They weren't subject to US law, and they
>>>> formed a third class. That changed.
>>>>
>>>> Texas tried arguing in Plyler v Doe that illegal aliens weren't
>>>> subject to Texas law. It was laughed out of court. The test is
>>>> easy: if someone breaks the law and he's caught, may he be tried,
>>>> convicted, and sentenced? Illegal alien, true. Diplomat with
>>>> immunity, false.
>>>>
>>> So in other words US law trumps all, thus all people on the planet are
>>> under the jurisdiction, having to pay US taxes on their income no
>>> matter where it was earned.
>>
>> That's right, you astounding ignoramus. Just like in the Monty Python
>> skit, the US is taxing all foreigners living abroad.
>>
>> Should I have marked that last as sarcasm?
>>
>> What don't you understand about the concept of jurisdiction? US courts
>> have no jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign countries. A US court
>
>
> Oh..now we are getting somewhere, DumbRat.
>
>> requires jurisdiction in personam (i.e, over a person) or in locum (i.e,
>> over a place). The former is the reason that US citizens must file tax
>> returns even when they're abroad; the latter is the reason that aliens
>> are subject to our laws when they're in the US, even when they're here
>> illegally.
>
> Can't have it both ways DumbAssRat
>
> Either the whole planet is under the jurisdiction and pays US income tax,
> or they are not, thus could violating the 14th Amendment of "equal
> protection under the law."
>
> "Why do I have to pay taxes, but foreigners do not?"
Were you born retarded or did your mother raise you to be a moron?
>
> Thus people unlawfully in the country have no right to free school.
Good thing then that children BORN in the U$A are not only here lawfully,
they are 100% full-blooded AMERICANS !!
Sucks to be you, don't it jackass?
|