On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:16:22 -0600, ¦ Reality Check© ¦ wrote:
> "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.
Which I, not Deadrat, said.
> "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.
Which is precisely what I have been saying all aloong.
> Your abject ignorance and bigotry is not dispositive of anything ...
> ... other than perhaps that your parents should have refrained
> from breeding.
It must suck to be Lamont. |