Terrorists and Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights

[dbackjon]

Nope, but that is what your civic failure wants to do.

Try and follow the adult conversation, Jon: The Supreme Court has ruled aliens and terrorists are covered under the constitution when it comes to due process. There are OTHER rights granted by the consitution (voting, etc,) that illegal aliens and terrorists are NOT afforded. So I ask again, do you honestly believe that our founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

See, I don't want them covered by ANY part of the constitution. So I'm not sure how it's only being applied when it's convenient in my case.

I forgot, you are an Idaho grad...

It is not convenient or politically expedient to insist that one of the fundamental rights - that of due process, extends to anyone on U.S. soil. To think otherwise is assinine.

[bench]

Try and follow the adult conversation, Jon: The Supreme Court has ruled aliens and terrorists are covered under the constitution when it comes to due process. There are OTHER rights granted by the consitution (voting, etc,) that illegal aliens and terrorists are NOT afforded. So I ask again, do you honestly believe that our founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

See, I don't want them covered by ANY part of the constitution. So I'm not sure how it's only being applied when it's convenient in my case.

I forgot, you are an Idaho grad...

It is not convenient or politically expedient to insist that one of the fundamental rights - that of due process, extends to anyone on U.S. soil. To think otherwise is assinine.

Furthermore, if you're denying rights to all non-US citizens, you're not just denying rights to violent criminals and terrorists. You're also denying legal protections to innocent non-residents who may be victims of crimes themselves, and as far as I know there's no way to craft a piece of legislation that can make that distinction, either practically or constitutionally.

[AZGrizFan]

Try and follow the adult conversation, Jon: The Supreme Court has ruled aliens and terrorists are covered under the constitution when it comes to due process. There are OTHER rights granted by the consitution (voting, etc,) that illegal aliens and terrorists are NOT afforded. So I ask again, do you honestly believe that our founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

See, I don't want them covered by ANY part of the constitution. So I'm not sure how it's only being applied when it's convenient in my case.

I forgot, you are an Idaho grad...

It is not convenient or politically expedient to insist that one of the fundamental rights - that of due process, extends to anyone on U.S. soil. To think otherwise is assinine.

To think one "right" is more fundamental than another "right" is what's assinine. To think otherwise would be....donkish.

[RobsPics]

Nope, but that is what your civic failure wants to do.

Try and follow the adult conversation, Jon: The Supreme Court has ruled aliens and terrorists are covered under the constitution when it comes to due process. There are OTHER rights granted by the consitution (voting, etc,) that illegal aliens and terrorists are NOT afforded. So I ask again, do you honestly believe that our founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

See, I don't want them covered by ANY part of the constitution. So I'm not sure how it's only being applied when it's convenient in my case.

You analysis is obviously suspect.

Consider the 2nd Amendment. Do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to every citizen in the United States equally?

If so, then you must logically agree that all US Citizens convicted of serious felony crimes (like murder, armed robbery, assault with deadly weapon etc) should still be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and own firearms when (if) they are released?

Obviously, and for good reason, the courts would disagree with that position.

So in the final analysis...yes it is logical, and Constitutional, to apply the the BoR differently based on different circumstances.

[TheDancinMonarch]

It was an absolute truth - that could not be explained away or reasoned away... there was simply no denying that The Republicans had secured the political landscape of America - they did so by speaking to peoples interests and needs, as well as their fears and anxieties - it was brilliantly executed

I didn't scream Liberal rhetoric at the top of my lungs on the white house lawn holding signs with misspelled words and catch phrases that I didn't understand... I didn't make up complete fictions and espouse them as truths to help me feel better about myself

I didn't claim that Republicans were here to destroy America and that if we didn't act fast the very fabric of the free world would be shredded and we would be annihilated if they weren't removed from office

Presently:
The constitution is still in place and functioning just fine... The branches of the government remain unchanged in their functions and feebleness... in time this group of knuckleheads will be replaced by a new group of knuckleheads - life as we know it will go on...

the below cartoon sums it up... it is unknown if what is happening now is GOOD or BAD... we simply honestly don't know... all that appears bad sometimes becomes a necessary vehicle for good - so was it then good or bad..?

So what you are saying is not that we should accept "the reality" but rather that we should not exaggerate it into something worse than it may actually be. "Bush/Obama is bad. It is the end of the world." should be replaced with "Bush/Obama is bad. But we'll get through it".

[Chizzang]

It was an absolute truth - that could not be explained away or reasoned away... there was simply no denying that The Republicans had secured the political landscape of America - they did so by speaking to peoples interests and needs, as well as their fears and anxieties - it was brilliantly executed

I didn't scream Liberal rhetoric at the top of my lungs on the white house lawn holding signs with misspelled words and catch phrases that I didn't understand... I didn't make up complete fictions and espouse them as truths to help me feel better about myself

I didn't claim that Republicans were here to destroy America and that if we didn't act fast the very fabric of the free world would be shredded and we would be annihilated if they weren't removed from office

Presently:
The constitution is still in place and functioning just fine... The branches of the government remain unchanged in their functions and feebleness... in time this group of knuckleheads will be replaced by a new group of knuckleheads - life as we know it will go on...

the below cartoon sums it up... it is unknown if what is happening now is GOOD or BAD... we simply honestly don't know... all that appears bad sometimes becomes a necessary vehicle for good - so was it then good or bad..?

So what you are saying is not that we should accept "the reality" but rather that we should not exaggerate it into something worse than it may actually be. "Bush/Obama is bad. It is the end of the world." should be replaced with "Bush/Obama is bad. But we'll get through it".

I would philosophically argue that what you're saying - your post - is "acceptance"...
Acceptance in that it reflects more closely to what is real
Acceptance has nothing to do with non-action as a few have implied on this forum
Acceptance might rather be seen as "recognition of what is real" which will allow one to proceed with change along lines that are not "insanity" and extreme exaggeration and fear...

The universe is not "in grave danger" because a liberal socialist is president...
and America will likely actually change very little during his time as president - the pendulum swings and has been swinging for 225 years in America...

[clenz]

So what you are saying is not that we should accept "the reality" but rather that we should not exaggerate it into something worse than it may actually be. "Bush/Obama is bad. It is the end of the world." should be replaced with "Bush/Obama is bad. But we'll get through it".

I would philosophically argue that what you're saying - your post - is "acceptance"...
Acceptance in that it reflects more closely to what is real
Acceptance has nothing to do with non-action as a few have implied on this forum
Acceptance might rather be seen as "recognition of what is real" which will allow one to proceed with change along lines that are not "insanity" and extreme exaggeration and fear...

The universe is not "in grave danger" because a liberal socialist is president...
and America will likely actually change very little during his time as president - the pendulum swings and has been swinging for 225 years in America...

But America was fucked with a neo-conservative at president...

[TheDancinMonarch]

I would philosophically argue that what you're saying - your post - is "acceptance"...
Acceptance in that it reflects more closely to what is real
Acceptance has nothing to do with non-action as a few have implied on this forum
Acceptance might rather be seen as "recognition of what is real" which will allow one to proceed with change along lines that are not "insanity" and extreme exaggeration and fear...

The universe is not "in grave danger" because a liberal socialist is president...
and America will likely actually change very little during his time as president - the pendulum swings and has been swinging for 225 years in America...

I think I need my hip boots before wading any deeper into this swamp.

[Chizzang]

I would philosophically argue that what you're saying - your post - is "acceptance"...
Acceptance in that it reflects more closely to what is real
Acceptance has nothing to do with non-action as a few have implied on this forum
Acceptance might rather be seen as "recognition of what is real" which will allow one to proceed with change along lines that are not "insanity" and extreme exaggeration and fear...

The universe is not "in grave danger" because a liberal socialist is president...
and America will likely actually change very little during his time as president - the pendulum swings and has been swinging for 225 years in America...

I think I need my hip boots before wading any deeper into this swamp.

Fair enough...
I've got so much free time right now I've been taking an on-line philosophy class (AWESOME FUN) and it's been creeping into my psyche'

Casper Hare at MIT offers a really great mental workout - beats going to the gym... but I do that too

[AZGrizFan]

Try and follow the adult conversation, Jon: The Supreme Court has ruled aliens and terrorists are covered under the constitution when it comes to due process. There are OTHER rights granted by the consitution (voting, etc,) that illegal aliens and terrorists are NOT afforded. So I ask again, do you honestly believe that our founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

See, I don't want them covered by ANY part of the constitution. So I'm not sure how it's only being applied when it's convenient in my case.

You analysis is obviously suspect.

Consider the 2nd Amendment. Do you honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to every citizen in the United States equally?

If so, then you must logically agree that all US Citizens convicted of serious felony crimes (like murder, armed robbery, assault with deadly weapon etc) should still be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and own firearms when (if) they are released?

Obviously, and for good reason, the courts would disagree with that position.

So in the final analysis...yes it is logical, and Constitutional, to apply the the BoR differently based on different circumstances.

Actually my analysis is NOT suspect. I think all those people you've described should be summarily shot so they couldn't own a firearm in the grave anyway.

[RobsPics]

Actually my analysis is NOT suspect. I think all those people you've described should be summarily shot so they couldn't own a firearm in the grave anyway.

Ok then, what about mentally disabled adults? The have some rights (right to vote, 5th & 6th Amendments, etc), but their right to own a gun is severely restricted compared to other US Citizens.

That's just another example of the BoR being applied when it is "convenient or politically expedient"...you have a problem with that?

[AZGrizFan]

Actually my analysis is NOT suspect. I think all those people you've described should be summarily shot so they couldn't own a firearm in the grave anyway.

Ok then, what about mentally disabled adults? The have some rights (right to vote, 5th & 6th Amendments, etc), but their right to own a gun is severely restricted compared to other US Citizens.

That's just another example of the BoR being applied when it is "convenient or politically expedient"...you have a problem with that?

Where is a mentally disabled adult's right to own a gun restricted? Do you live in a communist state?

[RobsPics]

Ok then, what about mentally disabled adults? The have some rights (right to vote, 5th & 6th Amendments, etc), but their right to own a gun is severely restricted compared to other US Citizens.

That's just another example of the BoR being applied when it is "convenient or politically expedient"...you have a problem with that?

Where is a mentally disabled adult's right to own a gun restricted? Do you live in a communist state?

Are you serious? You support the idea that mentally disabled persons should still be allowed to purchase firearms?

Sigh...I'm not going to do a state-by state rundown on gun laws for you...

"Under existing legislation from 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7153339.stm

[AZGrizFan]

Where is a mentally disabled adult's right to own a gun restricted? Do you live in a communist state?

Are you serious? You support the idea that mentally disabled persons should still be allowed to purchase firearms?

Sigh...I'm not going to do a state-by state rundown on gun laws for you...

"Under existing legislation from 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7153339.stm

Sorry, Rob....but you need to differentiate between "mentally ill" and "mentally disabled". I have a niece that's mentally disabled and i'd have no problem with a gun in her hands. I've got a nephew that would pass every check known to man and I wouldn't want to be in the same COUNTY if I knew he was packin' heat. It just ain't that neatly packaged.

[RobsPics]

Sorry, Rob....but you need to differentiate between "mentally ill" and "mentally disabled". I have a niece that's mentally disabled and i'd have no problem with a gun in her hands. I've got a nephew that would pass every check known to man and I wouldn't want to be in the same COUNTY if I knew he was packin' heat. It just ain't that neatly packaged.

Ok, ignoring the differences between mentally ill vs. mentally disabled, you are still sidestepping the issue of the BOR being applied to US Citizens differently.

You are arguing that the Constitution should be applied equally among all US Citizens, and not selectively when it is "convenient or politically expedient" right?

So what about the case of mentally ill adult US Citizens? They still have most of their Constitutional rights, but there 2nd Amendment right is severely limited.

In which "communist" State you ask? Try the "communist" state of Georgia for example:

(b) Licensing exceptions. No license or renewal license shall be granted to:

(1) Any person who is prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 922;

(1.1) Any person under 21 years of age;

(2) Any person who is a fugitive from justice...

(3) Any person who has been convicted of a felony...

(4) Any individual who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within five years of the date of his or her application

http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?t ... ection=129

You have a problem with these laws?

[AZGrizFan]

Ok, ignoring the differences between mentally ill vs. mentally disabled, you are still sidestepping the issue of the BOR being applied to US Citizens differently.

You are arguing that the Constitution should be applied equally among all US Citizens, and not selectively when it is "convenient or politically expedient" right?

So what about the case of mentally ill adult US Citizens? They still have most of their Constitutional rights, but there 2nd Amendment right is severely limited.

In which "communist" State you ask? Try the "communist" state of Georgia for example:

(b) Licensing exceptions. No license or renewal license shall be granted to:

(1) Any person who is prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 922;

(1.1) Any person under 21 years of age;

(2) Any person who is a fugitive from justice...

(3) Any person who has been convicted of a felony...

(4) Any individual who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within five years of the date of his or her application

http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?t ... ection=129

You have a problem with these laws?

I have highlighted the applicable two words in your post. I have a problem with the supreme court giving constitutional rights to war criminals that are NOT US CITIZENS. We've rather lost sight of the original argument. And just because the Supreme Court saw fit to do so, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it.

[RobsPics]

I have highlighted the applicable two words in your post. I have a problem with the supreme court giving constitutional rights to war criminals that are NOT US CITIZENS. We've rather lost sight of the original argument. And just because the Supreme Court saw fit to do so, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it.

Now you are back tracking...this is what you originally said before:

part of that whole "living document" bullshit then, huh? Picking and choosing which parts and when they apply?

[...]

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

Be cause if you do, then YOU fail civics, my friend.

In response to your messages, I have proved that YES it is logical, and CONSTITUTIONAL to apply "the document" selectively when it is "convenient or politically expedient to do so".

No body here ever claimed that you had to like the SCOTUS opinion.

But simply arguing that that the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be applied when politically expedient, makes it seem like you have no clue about SCOTUS rulings, rather than simply not liking their opinion.

[AZGrizFan]

I have highlighted the applicable two words in your post. I have a problem with the supreme court giving constitutional rights to war criminals that are NOT US CITIZENS. We've rather lost sight of the original argument. And just because the Supreme Court saw fit to do so, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it.

Now you are back tracking...this is what you originally said before:

part of that whole "living document" bullshit then, huh? Picking and choosing which parts and when they apply?

[...]

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers intended the document to be applied only when it was convenient or politically expedient to do so?

Be cause if you do, then YOU fail civics, my friend.

In response to your messages, I have proved that YES it is logical, and CONSTITUTIONAL to apply "the document" selectively when it is "convenient or politically expedient to do so".

No body here ever claimed that you had to like the SCOTUS opinion.

But simply arguing that that the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to be applied when politically expedient, makes it seem like you have no clue about SCOTUS rulings, rather than simply not liking their opinion.

The fact that we DO apply it when it's politically expedient in no way implies that that's what the founding fathers intended. They're most likely rolling over in their graves as we type away.

[RobsPics]

The fact that we DO apply it when it's politically expedient in no way implies that that's what the founding fathers intended. They're most likely rolling over in their graves as we type away.

So then we come back to the mentally ill/gun analogy.

When Georgia prohibits mentally ill people from owning guns, that is a Government restriction on the 2nd Amendment in a "politically expedient" manner.

Do you believe that the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves because mentally ill people are prohibited from practicing their 2nd Amendment right in Georgia?

[AZGrizFan]

The fact that we DO apply it when it's politically expedient in no way implies that that's what the founding fathers intended. They're most likely rolling over in their graves as we type away.

So then we come back to the mentally ill/gun analogy.

When Georgia prohibits mentally ill people from owning guns, that is a Government restriction on the 2nd Amendment in a "politically expedient" manner.

Do you believe that the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves because mentally ill people are prohibited from practicing their 2nd Amendment right in Georgia?

If I give in will you shut up? Because if the answer is "yes" then YES YES YES!!!!!! The fact that you've given some innane, irrelevant example to prove yourself right does NOT excuse the SC from fucking up and giving TERRORISTS constitutional rights.

[RobsPics]

So then we come back to the mentally ill/gun analogy.

When Georgia prohibits mentally ill people from owning guns, that is a Government restriction on the 2nd Amendment in a "politically expedient" manner.

Do you believe that the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves because mentally ill people are prohibited from practicing their 2nd Amendment right in Georgia?

If I give in will you shut up? Because if the answer is "yes" then YES YES YES!!!!!! The fact that you've given some innane, irrelevant example to prove yourself right does NOT excuse the SC from **** up and giving TERRORISTS constitutional rights.

Ok then, why dont you provide us with some proof of why the SCOTUS "fucked up"? First you tried to argue that the SCOTUS fucked up by treating it as a "living document". But when I proved how real life examples should temper the words of the BOR, you simply go back to saying the SCOTUS is wrong...but you don't give any reasons why.

And like like I mentioned before, for over 100 years the courts have said Habeas Corpus clause in the Constitution applies to all "PERSONS" not only Citizens. If you don't agree, then it would be nice te explain your rational.

[AZGrizFan]

They are not US citizens. They have never set foot in America. They are war criminals who committed acts of war against America. That's all the "proof" I need. The SC had no business meddling in this issue.

[RobsPics]

They are not US citizens. They have never set foot in America. They are war criminals who committed acts of war against America. That's all the "proof" I need. The SC had no business meddling in this issue.

I am not saying terrorist in foreign lands deserve constitutional protection...in fact I do not think those terrorist deserve it.

But the ones being tried in NYC were brought into the US. Gitmo is in Cuba, but because it is exclusively controlled by the USA, without any regard to the host country (Cuba), the courts said that was the same as bringing them to the USA. So they got rights when Bush brought them to Gitmo.

[kalm]

Didn't the founding fathers struggle with citizenship issues too?

[AZGrizFan]

They are not US citizens. They have never set foot in America. They are war criminals who committed acts of war against America. That's all the "proof" I need. The SC had no business meddling in this issue.

I am not saying terrorist in foreign lands deserve constitutional protection...in fact I do not think those terrorist deserve it.

But the ones being tried in NYC were brought into the US. Gitmo is in Cuba, but because it is exclusively controlled by the USA, without any regard to the host country (Cuba), the courts said that was the same as bringing them to the USA. So they got rights when Bush brought them to Gitmo.

And that's where they fucked up.