On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:41:30 GMT, Deadrat wrote:
> Don Gabacho wrote in
> news:1x5hx5b8pmgv8$.1oxb81qifqunr$.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:36:15 GMT, Deadrat wrote:
>>
>>> Don Gabacho wrote in
>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what they did. They got together, proposed a
>>> government, and asked the states to ratify it. The preamble says
>>> exactly that and no more -- the framers and their endorsers
>>> established the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> 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.."
>>>
>>> And it did. But even if you decide that "We the People" in the
>>> preamble means only the framers, the endorsers, and their progeny,...
>>
>> Liar.
>
> Yeah, sure.
Yes. You're a liar.
>> I had stated that the same Constitution of "We the People of the
>> U.S." allowed for immigrants to become one of "We the People of the
>> U.S." ("citizens")---and their progeny---via the observance of the
>> immigration laws enacted by Congress and certainly not by the policies
>> of the Mexican Government or its sycophants stateside.
>
> And so it does. In the meantime, those people here legally or illegally,
> with the encouragement of the Mexican government or without are protected
> by the Constitution whether you like it or not.
And again you lie.
As I have already stated there are protections in the Bill of Rights.
However, with both the instruction and force of the Mexican government,
so-called "immigrants"---legal or otherwise---are NOT "immigrants."
>>> that view has
>>> no force of law. Sorry, but the protections of the Constitution
>>> apply to everyone within its jurisdiction. So says the Supreme
>>> Court.
>>
>> Not to invaders or colonizers.
>
> The Constitution wouldn't apply to armed invaders or those who occupy the
> land under the protection of such an armed force. Illegal aliens, not so
> much.
"Armed or not," invaders and colonizers are just that: invaders and
colonizers. |