Replies

The constitution makes it plain that every " person within it's jurisdiction" means legal residents and citizens. It does NOT include people here illegally. Anyone who thinks otherwise had better read it over again very carefully. Taking a single sentance out of context is an old liberal trick.

According to your thinking, and others like you, the constitution would cover anyone in the world, or at least anyone who was within sight of our troops, because they would then be within it's jurisdiction!

This criminal had no consitutional rights, even if he had been here legally he gave up the right NOT to be shot at when he tried to smuggle illegal drugs into the country. The whole point you open border people try to gloss over is this guy was committing a major crime, several major crimes actually, and he should have been the one convicted, NOT the law officers who were trying to apprehend him.

Taking the word of a law breaking, smuggling, illegal, felon committing scum bag over two officers of the law is extremely telling on the people who have done so.

The constitution makes it plain that every " person within it's jurisdiction" means legal residents and citizens. It does NOT include people here illegally.

LOL--"Plain," where?
No one has yet to respond to my argument that the Founders saw fit to distinguish between two terms in at least one section of the Constitution, but I am told to guess what they meant elsewhere. Why can't I just make the distinction they themselves made? "Liberal trick," indeed.

Where does the constitution make it "plain" that every person within it's jurisdiction means legal resident and citizen? That has never been the intent of the founding fathers nor any interpretation by the Supreme Court. If your interpretation was correct than there could never be a criminal case or trial brought an illegal alien since jurisdiction is fundamental prerequisite of any criminal action brought by the state.