Posted on 07/18/2004 10:46:18 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
Yep, no lienency for me ;)
Thanks.
Pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe. . . for cheap foreign labor.
It means that the Federal Government cannot intervene in a lawsuit filed against a citizen of State X by a citizen of State Y, or a citizen of State X by a foreign citizen. In other words, our Veteran from Texas doesn't know squat about Constitutional law.
Then I've got him beat. I know squat about loads more than just Constitutional law.
Thanks for the explanation. No matter how many times I read it, I still couldn't make hide nor hair of it. It made as much sense to me as the following lyric from some old song whose title I've forgotten:
"She's bigger at the little than bottom at the top."
bttt
ping
That's some kind of District Attorney... WHAT kind I'm not going to say on a public forum.
120 days for felony hit and run? Druggies found with their stash get more time than that. Oh, I forgot, the guy was an illegal alien, one of the protected class, so that explains the leniency...
Say what?
He hit her so hard she went through the windshield and got shredded.
bttt
This guy is a real human being.
He pulls a woman, that's bleeding to death, out of his windshield and dumps her body into a ditch. Note, he wouldn't think of putting her in the back of his pickup truck and driving her to the hospital as he said he would do for his two fellow illegal aliens.
No, he leaves her to die.
Then he's so upset over killing someone that he has the presence of mind to ditch the truck and remove the plates.
That's just what any other decent human being would do, right?
Then he goes into hiding for 36 hours and surprise, surprise there's no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his bloodstream.
At first blush, this sentence might seem a little light, but I imagine he's already suffered all the mental anguish that Ted Kennedy did.
>/sarcasm<
When you have no identity, place of residence or ethics your options after committing a crime are far more varied than for the rest of us.
But when caught I would at least expect the law to be as harsh as they would on me.
Nice rebuttal.
Interesting debate...
Even thou Rachel Corrie confronted the bulldozer driver, the driver shouldn't have run this idiot girl down and back over again.
The driver should have called the police to remove her from the scene and then bulldozed the house.
However, as an American Citizen was Murdered in Israel the bulldozer driver should have been held accountable.
Just like this man in this story should have been held accountable for his actions.
Murder is 99% legal today depending on the situation.
Have fun flaming me...hehehehe...
One confused American Citizen now a dead American Citizen with no justice.
One more thing, even this brave Chinese protester didn't get squished by a tank column. They removed him, had a trial and shot him at dead at a later date.
What a brave kid or was he an idiot also?
Anyway, (a little off the subject) if
your going to a fight at minimum you
should start with even odds of surviving.
I'm not following your line of thought. You're responding to Post 15 which said "Non Americans shall have no rights of Citizens." Did you read Post 24 by 1rudeboy? He disagreed with the statement "Non Americans shall have no rights of Citizens." and offered this in reply:
"It means that the Federal Government cannot intervene in a lawsuit filed against a citizen of State X by a citizen of State Y, or a citizen of State X by a foreign citizen. In other words, our Veteran from Texas doesn't know squat about Constitutional law."
Before someone makes the argument that the Founders intended to draw a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but neglected to substitute the more restrictive word "citizens" for the more expansive word "people," as it appears in the Bill of Rights, please remember that the Founders made that distinction in the body of the Constitution itself, when it discusses eligibility for public office, etc. One would have to argue that Founders "forgot" to apply a distinction that they clearly make elsewhere. Quite a leap, as Justice Scalia likely would argue.
Thanks for your comments on this thread.
This is also supported by the "subject to the juristiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment, which also states that the children of illegals born here ought not be citizens of the Republic.
how about deporting his corpse back to mexico
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.