"Don Gabacho" wrote in message
news:6ngarzl8xlge.11ku9ykuf2tj1$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:15:10 GMT, Deadrat wrote:
>
>> Don Gabacho wrote in
>> news:1p2pj2qdwrmi3$.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.
Yep, and "We the People of the U$" as citizens established that ALL
people within the U$A are covered by of the protections in
the BOR. "We the People" even went so far as to specifically
enumerate which Rights cover "citizens" and which rights cover "persons"
whether they be citizens or not.
Your abject ignorance and bigotry is not dispositive of anything ...
... other than perhaps that your parents should have refrained
from breeding.
|