Posted on 08/13/2002 9:40:24 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
That's a lie,
That's a lie. The name of the case is not the argument. You were too lazy to even quote, whereas I've gone to the trouble of quoting Buckley.
You lie,
You're lazy,
And you're intellectually dishonest.
You're the one with a problem with standard written English, buddy. Deal with it.
If someone shuts up voluntarily, you have not silenced them, no matter what you said.
BTW, if you keep this up, I'm going to notify your mother that you're misusing her AOL account again.
I admit that I did not quote you directly when I quoted you as saying "Foreign Terrorists have all the rights under the Bill of Rights".
But you posted a quote from somewhere, here in this thread, that said as much, and you endorsed it. If you didn't say it, do you believe it?
The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" (p.260)refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
While the instant case dealt with a search that occurred in Mexico, there was no disagreement between the concurring and dissenting judges that a search of a location in the US that involved a privacy interest associated with an individual who was physically located within our borders would be subject to the constraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment.
Scary to see that you would stifle those who disagree with you. The Redcoats and King George would have been fond of you.
Oh really? I've been saying what the Constitution says, not what the Courts have said it says. I've never said that the Courts agreed with me, and have never even said what the case law is. How can you say I've misunderstood it? Even if the case law is against what I see in the Constitution, case law can be wrong, if it goes against the text and context of the Constitution.
Scary to see that you would stifle those who disagree with you. The Redcoats and King George would have been fond of you.
Scary to think that you wouldn't want to silence someone who was wrong and thus dangerous to life, liberty and property.
Would you give Osama a megaphone?
I guess you think Rush is "scary" when he says liberals must be "beaten", "defeated", or "gotten rid of"?
Now, this case you cited from - it looks like it supports what I'm saying:
The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" (p.260)refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
Who's arguing with that?! The term "people" used in the 4th Amendment refers to those same "people" mentioned in the Preamble, who are "of the United States". So I don't see any argument here at all, against my reading, that you can search someone's effects without a warrant, if they have no connection sufficient to be considered part of the "people of United States". Whether in Mexico or the US, people OF THE UNITED STATES are protected from unwarranted searches and seizures BY THE UNITED STATES, but foreigners have no IVth Amendment constitutional protection from our government, even if they are here physically, as they are not "people of the United States."
That's real nice that the Justices, you say, disagree with me about who the "people" are in the 4th. They think those "people" include foregners, and suspected terrorists as long as they're on US soil? Can you cite their basis in Constitutional text for their opinion? I've cited mine. The fact that the IVth Amendment says "people" instead of "person" is something I hadn't really noticed, but that adds even more support to my position. The exact same word is used in the Preamble, in describing who the Constitution is supposed to secure the blessings of liberty to.
That also makes my case for the the 2nd Amendment. Foreigners don't have a right to bear arms inside the US, as they are not "the People" of the United States. That's not to say Congress has forbid them to bear arms, but Congress could if it wanted to.
You think I'm the only one considering you a greater danger to the US than a terrorist?
Look around at all the people starting to hammer you on your skewed views, and your totalitarian notions.
I bet that if Hillary Clinton would have said the exact same words you said, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs about "your rights".
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.U.S. Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
457 U.S. 202PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 80-1538.
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982 *
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). 9 [457 U.S. 202, 211] "
Would you give Osama a megaphone?
I guess you think Rush is "scary" when he says liberals must be "beaten", "defeated", or "gotten rid of"?
Yes, I would give Osama a megaphone. No, Rush isn't scary - you don't see him advocating forcible stifling of free speech. The difference is that Rush and I would let the Socialists scream their pap from the rooftops - it only serves to make them look more foolish. What you advocate is stifling free speech - which makes you no better than Osama and the Left.
With respect to the case I cited - you will note that nowhere in the opinion do the Justices distinquish between citizens vs foreigners. Their guidepost is "sufficient ties" and non-citizens can develop them and thereby become protected via the Constitution.
If you read the whole opinion there is language about this country respecting it's own laws within it's own borders.
And I admit, I believe that individuals without citizenship have less protections - but if you read the Patriot Act carefully, provisions regarding suspension of 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights apply to US citizens as well and that is NOT constitutional.
I hope you will forgive me for misquoting you. That quote was a distillation of what you believe, though. Is it not? I don't think it misrepresented what you believe.
Let's cool the flames off for a while.
There are serious questions that have to be considered, in this police action on foreign terrorists, which presents legal questions the country hasn't faced since the War between the States, or ever.
In Phyler vs. Doe, the judges answer the obvious - that a person is a person. That is so obvious, that it's ludicrous to even say it. The question is - was the Constitution established to secure the blessings of liberty to everyone in the world who might be inside the United States' borders, or was it established to secure those blessings to people of the United States? You know what I think. The court hasn't had to directly face this argument, from what it looks like. Those lawyers hung their hopes on the text "within its jurisdiction", and argued a different case than me. My basis is more widespread.
Throughout the Constitution, it is implied that "persons" are only those who are "of the United States."
Take the clause on Treason for example.
"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses..."
Well, a foreigner "is a person", and you can hardly convict a foreigner inside the United States of Treason. There's no question that this "person" mentioned has to be attached to the United States in some meaningful way. Clearly this use of the word "person" has the implication that he is "of the United States" behind it. Why then does the "person" in the fifth, or "people" in the 4th, not have to only be "of the United States"?
By what you're (and these judges) interpretation of "person" is, a foreigner could be convicted of Treason, by the language in Article III section 3, and this is ridiculous. You can't commit treason against a country that is not your own. Article III S.3 only makes sense if the word "person" is a citizen, or legal immigrant whose citizenship is pending, who is "of the United States". The "people" and the "persons" the Constitution mentions throughout its text, are all people "of the United States". Others are refered to as "citizens or subjects of ...foreign state[s]". BTW, I'm wondering if the Judges in the Phyler vs. Doe case didn't violate the 11th Amendment. The Fed courts have no authority in cases brought by foreigners against States like Texas. Looks like somebody has dropped the ball.
How did this case even get heard by the Supreme Court if the litigants were foreigners? I don't think they should be able to hide behind a guardianship. The guardian is not the one who is damaged. This farthest this case should have gotten is the Texas Supreme Court.
The United States set itself up as the one country in the world that believed that "all men are created equal" and that we all have rights granted by God.
How ridiculous is it to argue that the very same people who made such statements on the purpose and reasons WHY this nation was giving birth to itself, would then turn around and claim that those lofty ideals pertained only to those born on American soil.
If you believe in the principles that the Founders set forth, and their vision, then you MUST believe that all men are truly "created equal," and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
All men Hugh, not just American citizens.
You see Hugh, the argument isn't whether all men are antitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution, but rather whether we are the true guardians of the principles set forth by the Founders, or the selective oppressors they wished to distance themselves from.
To think that a warrant was needed to search the 20th Hi-jacker and Frenchie Z.M.'s computer is to put his alienable right to be secure in his personal effects, above New Yorkers' unalienable rights to life and property. Priorities.
Now that's ridiculous, and criminally neglegent, especially when the Constitution doesn't require it.
The right to not have your house searched without a warrant is NOT a divinely endowed right. It's a right that people of the United States have. It's not a right an alien has under the Constitution.
Some rights in the Bill of Rights come from God, and some come from Man.
Don't confuse the Bill of Rights with the 10 Commandments.
You see Hugh, the argument isn't whether all men are antitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution, but rather whether we are the true guardians of the principles set forth by the Founders, or the selective oppressors they wished to distance themselves from.
Well the Founders set up a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
Not to Zacharias Moussoui.
You want to have your rights secured by the United States and its resources, and benefit from its principles? Then become part "of the United States", and espouse its principles. Why do you want it to be a one way street, and at that, a one way street for the enemies of the United States? Citizenship has its privileges and responsibilities. You can't separate the two as easily as you would like.
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.