Who has constitutional rights?

[woodwork201]

Want to take another look at the post to which I was responding?

Maybe you should. Click the link to my post from in your post.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe you should. Click the link to my post from in your post.

Are you sure there’s nothing you want to reconsider?

 

[woodwork201]

where else is it used??

So now you admit that you've never actually read the Constitution? Amazing.

 

[progressive hunter]

The preamble means nothing. It simply tells the reason for creating the Constitution but it does not establish any law or binding orders. But, even so, where does it say that the people in the preamble are citizens only?

and who are you that thinks they know more than the rest of the world??

where it says
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"

it doesnt say any mother fucker that sneaks in and BREAKS our laws,,

 

[progressive hunter]

So now you admit that you've never actually read the Constitution? Amazing.

heres your chance to show me up instead of just trying to insult me???

my guess is you cant,,

 

[woodwork201]

Are you sure there’s nothing you want to reconsider?

Your post 194 quotes me calling out progressive hunter in post 184 because he has a copy of the Constitution that says something different from my copy.

If you're still not seeing where you went wrong, I'm certainly willing to consider your evidence of my error but you're just playing games. If you have something to say, say it. Point out what you're referring to.

 

[woodwork201]

and who are you that thinks they know more than the rest of the world??

where it says
"WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"

it doesnt say any mother fucker that sneaks in and BREAKS our laws,,

How do you know they broke our laws until they've had a trial?
And when you ask about me knowing more than the rest of the world, include the Supreme Court in that.

Here's a good summary:

Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?

Do undocumented immigrants to the U.S. enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and protections granted to American citizens by the Constitution?

www.thoughtco.com

 

[woodwork201]

heres your chance to show me up instead of just trying to insult me???

my guess is you cant,,

The word "people" is in the Constitution 9 times.

 

[progressive hunter]

How do you know they broke our laws until they've had a trial?
And when you ask about me knowing more than the rest of the world, include the Supreme Court in that.

Here's a good summary:

Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?

Do undocumented immigrants to the U.S. enjoy the same rights, freedoms, and protections granted to American citizens by the Constitution?

www.thoughtco.com

I have said illegals have a right of due process over and over again,,

I know they do because the 5th A says "ANY PERSON" not "THE PEOPLE"

 

[progressive hunter]

The word "people" is in the Constitution 9 times.

OK,,,'that doesnt tell me anything,,
'
where are they found and under what context??

 

[progressive hunter]

woodwork201

you still there??

 

[San Souci]

only when the people are not specified,,
such as the 5th A that says ANY PERSON,,, or the 3rd that says HOME OWNER,,,

or the 6th that says THE ACCUSED,,,

If you look closely ,the First Sentence covers ALL mentions of "People" as Citizens. Or that would be how the SCOTUS would so interpret.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

Everyone living in America who is subject to the law, so, Weather53, you are so wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

...the original, release 1 with 27 amendments, as ratified in 1789. ...

 

[progressive hunter]

If you look closely ,the First Sentence covers ALL mentions of "People" as Citizens. Or that would be how the SCOTUS would so interpret.

yes it does,,

 

[billyerock123]

PPFFFFFTTTT!

that you would not be able to defend your allegations ... when confronted say stupid stuff like PPFFFFFTTI ... IT YOUR BEST ...

 

[billyerock123]

Neither do you. You have human rights, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence to have been given by God. The Constitution grants you no rights; it only protects those rights that God has given when he created you as a child of God, as a human being.

Now if you'll just show me in the Constitution where it says that illegal immigrants, or any other criminals, rights are different from yours, where God didn't give them t he same rights, where they are not children of God, then I'll agree with what you say.

we are talking about constitutional rights here... not about some made-up deity in the sky that doesn't exist ... constitutional rights are real, but god is not ... I was created by sperm and an egg that my parents made from intercourse, or better known as fucking... not some fictional deity ...

god never gave us the amendments the US founding fathers did ... you seem to be crazy ... there is a document agreed upon by other members of the United States of America not by a priest or a god that hasn't shown up to tell them what to write... you seem to be a religious whacko... no god wrote the Constitution founding fathers wrote on what is fair and legal ... it is a living document it is referred as ... where it can be changed for the better not some fictitious god-telling them what to wright ... our founding father made sure that no religious documents were ever put into the constitution... that is a well known fact ...

 

[San Souci]

that you would not be able to defend your allegations ... when confronted say stupid stuff like PPFFFFFTTI ... IT YOUR BEST ...

No. Just cut a Fart. That is all your Commie responses are worth.

 

[progressive hunter]

we are talking about constitutional rights here... not about some made-up deity in the sky that doesn't exist ... constitutional rights are real, but god is not ... I was created by sperm and an egg that my parents made from intercourse, or better known as fucking... not some fictional deity ...

god never gave us the amendments the US founding fathers did ... you seem to be crazy ... there is a document agreed upon by other members of the United States of America not by a priest or a god that hasn't shown up to tell them what to write... you seem to be a religious whacko... no god wrote the Constitution founding fathers wrote on what is fair and legal ... it is a living document it is referred as ... where it can be changed for the better not some fictitious god-telling them what to wright ... our founding father made sure that no religious documents were ever put into the constitution... that is a well known fact ...

can you prove god isnt real??

FFS you think a piece of paper is alive,,

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Populists Vying For Democracy As Tyranny By Collective Majority Against Independence Of The Individual Citizen "

* Misconstrued And Ignored Thereof Term In Us 14th *

You're really suggesting that non-citizens are not bound by the law of the States or by Federal law?

The us 14th amendment has extended equal protection of its laws , however there is a difference between negative liberty of protections and positive liberty of endowments , and those whom are not subjects of us jurisdiction are not entitled to positive liberty of endowments , even though they are subject to us jurisdiction .

The term thereof within us 14th amendment clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " prefaces that an individual is a subject of us jurisdiction and not simply subject to it .

Zone1 - Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment

" Civis Etas Unis Sum And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause From Us 14th Amendment " * Meaning For And Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof Clause * Consider the terms " born " and " naturalized " in relationship with the clause of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " from us...

www.usmessageboard.com

* A Priori Sciences Of Natural Events *

There is no naturalism or principles of naturalism in the United States.

Prior to entering into a social civil contract , according to a constitution , individuals are subject to natural freedoms through a moral relativism within nature , and to improve opportunity for survival and quality of life , individuals exchange natural freedoms for membership within a collective .

A positive ( posited - put there ) law exists because an entity is able to issue of retort for violations of the legal pretexts ( written law - legal positivism ) , such as a collective state , or a federate , or a corporate , or an individual .

Zone1 - Could Metaphorical Naturalism Include Celestial Religion ?

" Could Metaphorical Naturalism Include Celestial Religion ? " * Applying Esoteric Allusions To Physical Phenomenon * Could metaphorical naturalism include celestial religion ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Principles Of Us Republic Founded Upon Independence Of The Individual *

The colonies were under the rule of the King of England and bound by English law. The states had laws at the time of the revolution and they kept those laws after the revolution. There were both statutory laws and common laws. After the revolution, the states began to form constitutions of their own, and new laws, based on those constitutions. The people voted for those constitutions and surrendered part of their liberties for the benefits of government. It was by choice that they surrendered not their natural rights because they were long surrendered by then but, instead, their vote was acknowledgement that they had already surrendered any claims to naturalism.

Just like buying a home in a subdivision with a home-owners association and bylaws. Those bylaws were put on the title when the house was built and the bylaws stay on the title basically forever, unless the original bylaws spelled out the means to change or remove the bylaws and that process, whatever it is, was followed. Otherwise, generation after generation, those bylaws remain in effect. In the same way, our forefathers traded some of their liberty for the benefits of limited government. The pact, or bylaws, or we can call it a constitution, that our forefathers agreed to with the others in the state remain in effect, generation after generation, and they can only be changed by the procedure that our forefathers established.

Then, the states all got together and created a national constitution, and the states surrendered their own sovereignty to the national government. Once again, that contract, those bylaws, or constitution, lasts forever and can only be changed following the process that our forefathers agreed to.

So you can take your anarchist views of the world and take them somewhere else because you have no naturalist rights in the United States. Here, we have a constitution, and we're all bound by it, just as is the Government.

In the Constitution, there are limits on government, saying which rights the Government can or can not interfere with. In fact, the Federalists knew that the Bill of Rights was not even needed because the Constitution didn't give the Government permission to interfere with any one's rights. It also didn't give the Government permission to interfere with the rights of non-citizens. If an explicit grant of authority was understood to be required in the first case, then it is also required in the latter case - because there's no explicit differentiation in the Constitution.

So back to the question you ignored. Can the Government use cruel and unusual punishment against non-citizens, with or without the benefit of trial or attorney?

I'm not going to even try to dissect that rambling word-salad. I'm just going to tell you that there's no such thing as a positive endowment or negative liberties. Those are theories for a bunch of college professors and have no place in our constitution other than as talking points for theorists. The rights in the Constitution, all of them, are God-given rights, human rights, and they existed before the Constitution was created and every person on earth has those rights in their fundamental form. Tyrannical governments interfere with those rights but they don't remove the rights.

The Constitution doesn't grant or endow any right; it prohibits the Government from interfering with rights. There are no rights protected in the Constitution that have an "except when" clause - other than the right to vote in the 14th Amendment.

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

* Applying The Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of A Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction * * Opening Post Subjective Objective Sew Gnomon * The term right is a faux pas of diction , as to equivocate the term right with a mathematical norm leads to a contradiction ...

www.usmessageboard.com

Zone1 - Anthropocentic Psychosis : How Compelling And To Which Ends Are Its Impacts Within Hue Mammon Society ?

" Anthropocentic Psychosis : How Compelling And To Which Ends Are Its Impacts Within Hue Mammon Society ? " * Environmentalism Advocates Getting Ugly About Apex Predator Gluttony * An anthropocentric psychosis may be characterized as anthropocentrism which has become dysfunctional . *...

www.usmessageboard.com