FLAME WARS, BANISHMENTS, ANTI-FREEPERS. YOUR CALLS, YOUR OPINIONS THIS WEEK ON RADIO FREE REPUBLIC

Radio FreeRepublic and the Free Republic Network ^ | August 13, 2002 | Luis Gonzalez

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Ten Commandments?

That's the Declaration of Independence Hugh...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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."

What was it that was said about people willing to sacrifice a little freedom in exchange for a little safety?

Somewhere out there, there could conceivably be another Tim McVeigh, another Ted Kazinski, another Charles Whitman...tell me Hugh, how do you find them before they break the law without violating the Constitution?

You'll answer something along the line of there being a difference between citizens and non citizens.

I guess to you, the Declaration of Independence, and the principles under which this Nation was founded, are just so many empty words.

I won't answer your next post.

[H.Akston]

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.

The Founders didn't say that. I'm not arguing that they said that. They insured that you could become a person "of the United States", if you were born on foreign soil. It's called Naturalization, and it's mentioned in the Constitution.

Why do you suppose the Founders gave Congress the authority to establish rules of naturalization? Those rules allow those not born on American soil to become citizens. Why bother being a citizen, if you've already got all the rights in the Bill of Rights? Could it be that the Founders benevolently wished for foreigners to become naturalized so that they could benefit from having their God-given liberties secured by the United States?? Could it be that they acknowledged that until naturalized, a person wasn't "of the United States", and therefore his liberty could not be fully secured by the United States?

Why make the provision for naturalization, if it didn't involve any increase in rights for the person on US soil?

What good does naturalization do the person?

[H.Akston]

Take one more step. The Declaration draws its authority from the Ten Commandments when it declares life (thou shalt not kill) an unalienable right. Property is "among these" unalienable rights - (thou shalt not steal).

There are some Creator-endowed, unalienable rights (Life liberty and property) mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and there are some rights that are granted by Man. I don't think God said anything about the right to a Grand Jury, or a search warrant. It's not going to kill ZM, if his computer gets searched, and 3000 lives are saved as a result. And since he was a foreigner, it could have been searched without a warrant.

[H.Akston]

Here it is, sport:

"If we take rights seriously, we may see that the equivocal language of our Constitution furnishes a vehicle and a formidable legal argument for recognizing the rights of all persons, even illegal immigrants, terrorists, and other enemies of the state. " - quoted proudly by Luis Gonzalez from http://www.spinninglobe.net/dueprocess.html

May God help the People of The United States secure the blessings of His endowed liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

American Lives are more important than getting a search warrant for a foreigner's computer.

[H.Akston]

U.S. Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
457 U.S. 202
PLYLER, 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 *


(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."

How did this case get before the Supreme Court, without someone violating the 11th Amendment?

The 11th Amendment says that Federal Courts do not have authority in cases between citizens of another Country, and a State in the United States. This case was between a Mexican(s) (the ruse of a 'guardian' notwithstanding) and Texas.

Anyone have any ideas?

[H.Akston]

Come on over, where there's a great article on how hesitation over a foreigner's non-existent 4th Amendment rights helped cause 9/11:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/738376/posts

The opinion may be important in documenting why the F.B.I. was hesitant last summer to seek court authority to search the computer and other belongings of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota last August, and F.B.I. officials have acknowledged that their failure to investigate him more fully was among the mistakes that allowed the Sept. 11 hijackers to operate in the United States undetected in the weeks before the attacks.

(You might be interested, assuming you think the 9/11 attacks were worse than an unwarranted search and seizure of a foreigner's computer would be.)

[H.Akston]

"I won't answer your next post."

You haven't satisfactorily answered any of my posts, except the one where you posted the quote from Phyler vs. Doe.

That was quite an interesting case. Wonder how the Supreme Court got around the 11th Amendment on that one?

[H.Akston]

Look around at all the people starting to hammer you on your skewed views, and your totalitarian notions.

Yeah just look! :)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/738376/posts

Your silence is golden.