Liberals: WHERE the HELL are you now?

[Black_Label]

No, it doesn't. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to anyone other than Americans. You have zero right to remain silent if you're a Russian. You have zero right to a speedy trial if you're an Australian.

Now, have we traditionally extended them those rights? Yes. But do we have to? Absolutely NOT. You cannot have Constitutional rights if you're not a U.S. citizen. It really is that simple....

You're staggeringly wrong, and every legal precedent is against you. It really is that simple.

Here are a few Supreme Court cases.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

While it may be that a resident alien's ultimate right to remain in the United States is subject to alteration by statute or authorized regulation because of a voyage undertaken by him to foreign ports, it does not follow that he is thereby deprived of his constitutional right to procedural due process. His status as a person within the meaning and protection of the Fifth Amendment cannot be capriciously taken from him.

The only "Rights" outlined in the Constitution that are limited to citizens are the Right to vote, and the Right to run for public office. The rest make no distinction about citizenship.

A quick glance at the Bill of Rights, and it's use of the word "person" not "citizen" would explain what I mean.

Ah - here we go again. The uneducated liberal pointing to the Supreme Court...

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but I'll try once again:

Laws are made by the legislative branch - the Supreme Court is the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court does NOT make law. God almighty. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court could rule that it's ok to ass rape and then murder ignorant USMB posters, but that doesn't make it actually legal or right.

Nice job ignoring all my posts and the others calling you out you fucking idiot, no wonder why you are a mentally ill right winger.

You make the GOP look better and better with every post

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your statement is so ignorant, it defies logic.

The U.S. Constitution applies to Americans only. It is not an international document. It does not apply to Mexicans. Canadians do not have a "right to bear arms" (just ask them). Ask Iran if they recognize their citizens "U.S. Constitutional rights".

It is strictly a U.S. document which applies to U.S. citizens only. Period.

No.

The Constitution applies only to the US, but it doesn't limit the rights to American citizens. A Canadian who gets arrested in NY gets the same legal rights as you or I would, as would a Mexican, or any other foreign national.

It's not a matter of other countries recognizing our Constitution - it's a matter of us recognizing our Constitution - and our Constitution applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of our legal system, not just citizens.

Not quite, nitwit. Do Canadians have the right to vote in American elections? Do they have the right to a jury trial for violating our immigration laws? Since they can be deported for whatever reason we choose to deport them, they really have no rights whatsoever.

See my previous post:

The only "Rights" outlined in the Constitution that are limited to citizens are the Right to vote, and the Right to run for public office. The rest make no distinction about citizenship.

And no - they can't be "deported" without due process.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny. Teabagger darling Allen West was booted from the Army - and sure as hell will NEVER be president. Therefore, I ain't worried...

Wrong. He retired. You're simply a lying asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

No.

The Constitution applies only to the US, but it doesn't limit the rights to American citizens. A Canadian who gets arrested in NY gets the same legal rights as you or I would, as would a Mexican, or any other foreign national.

It's not a matter of other countries recognizing our Constitution - it's a matter of us recognizing our Constitution - and our Constitution applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of our legal system, not just citizens.

Not quite, nitwit. Do Canadians have the right to vote in American elections? Do they have the right to a jury trial for violating our immigration laws? Since they can be deported for whatever reason we choose to deport them, they really have no rights whatsoever.

See my previous post:

The only "Rights" outlined in the Constitution that are limited to citizens are the Right to vote, and the Right to run for public office. The rest make no distinction about citizenship.

It doesn't apply. If Congress passed a law saying a foreigner can be deported for criticizing the President, it would be perfectly legal.

And no - they can't be "deported" without due process.

I said they can be deported without a jury trial. The Fifth Amendment says you have a right to a jury trial.

 

[Lakhota]

Funny. Teabagger darling Allen West was booted from the Army - and sure as hell will NEVER be president. Therefore, I ain't worried...

Wrong. He retired. You're simply a lying asshole.

Wrong. You lie.

Allen West Had To Resign From Army To Avoid Court Martial

The military decided against court-martialing Colonel West. He was fined $5,000, and he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective this summer, when he will retire with full benefits.

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: INTERROGATIONS; How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost - New York Times

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not quite, nitwit. Do Canadians have the right to vote in American elections? Do they have the right to a jury trial for violating our immigration laws? Since they can be deported for whatever reason we choose to deport them, they really have no rights whatsoever.

See my previous post:

It doesn't apply. If Congress passed a law saying a foreigner can be deported for criticizing the President, it would be perfectly legal.

That would depend on the Supreme Court - and unless there's an extreme shifting of views, I don't think the Court would find a law like that Constitutional.

And no - they can't be "deported" without due process.

I said they can be deported without a jury trial. The Fifth Amendment says you have a right to a jury trial.[/QUOTE]
There are exceptions about deportations, due to it being an administrative rule, rather than a "law" as passed by Congress.

But that doesn't change the fact that if an illegal immigrant was arrested for Murder, they'd be entitled a jury trial, just like you or me.

 

[P@triot]

I'm confident that no future President, Republican or Democrat, is going to start arbitrarily killing Americans with Predator drones.

Unbelievable.... really illustrates what a naive fool we are dealing with here....

I'll save my outrage for actions, not words. If Obama actually started killing Americans with drones, then I'll worry about it.

Oh my god... Hey dipshit, it's a little late then. You need to be concerned about it before he (or any other president) kills Americans. "Saving your outrage" for after he's killed Americans is the idiotic equivalent of closing the barn door after the horses have all run away. What good does that do - it's too late then.

Goddamn are you a fool....

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court doesn't "make law", they interpret the Constitution. They are the final word on what is or is not "Constitutional".

They don't "interpret" the Constitution (it's written in black & white and says exactly what is says - what is there to "interpret"?!?) - they rule on the Constitutionality of laws or issues. When Obamacare went before the Supreme Court, they weren't "interpreting" the Constitution - they were judging if the AHCA was Constitutional.

It's just painful having to explain this over and over and over to liberals....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This really illustrates how much Barack Obama hates Americans and loves muslims. When terrorists were being held without "due process" (which they are not entitled as the U.S. Constitution is not an international document - it applies to Americans only and only with regards to the U.S. government... an American in China is at the mercy of the Chinese government and has no rights) while he was a Senator, Barack Obama had a fuck'n hissy fit.

Yet, he says he has the right to kill actual Americans without due process. He is one sick fuck'n animal and it is very clear that he has his daddy's deep hatred for this country and its people.

The rights outlined in the Constitution are in no way limited to American citizens.

Your statement is so ignorant, it defies logic.

The U.S. Constitution applies to Americans only. It is not an international document. It does not apply to Mexicans. Canadians do not have a "right to bear arms" (just ask them). Ask Iran if they recognize their citizens "U.S. Constitutional rights".

It is strictly a U.S. document which applies to U.S. citizens only. Period.

You're wrong of course but you could always post PROOF.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well, while those conservatives were definitely wrong, there is a monumental difference between what amounts to "data mining" information of U.S. citizens and killing U.S. citizens, wouldn't you say?

I'd much rather have the federal government steal and read my emails than kill me and my family with a predator drone. The fact that you can't see a "difference" (you exact words) is truly tragic.

Another "monumental difference" would be that Bush actually did wiretapped American citizens - whereas Obama has yet to use Predator drones in the US, and is staggeringly unlikely to do so.

Oh - well, why didn't you say so? I feel so comfortable now that "thedoctorisin" says that Barack Obama is "staggeringly unlikely" to kill Americans with drones, even though he has illegally and unconstitutionally granted himself that power.

By the way, will you be so confident in the next president when it is Dick Cheney with that power? Or Jeb Bush? Or Allen West?

Yeah, I thought so.... Here's an idea, instead of desperately searching for excuses, why don't you denounce this awful action by Obama? It's amazing that you people are completely incapable of criticizing him no matter what he does.

Actually, you have a very good point.

Only idiots would trust froot loops like West, incompetents like Bush or monsters like Cheney have the same degree of power we give to our presidents.

As to your op, have you read any other several other threads on this subject?

If you believe killing terrorists on US soil is unconstitutional, tell it to SCOTUS.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

After having one anuerism after another (or apparently pretending to) about the "Patriot Act" and about "enhanced interrogations" - I have yet to hear one liberal complain that both Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder believe the federal government has the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

How-much-more blood do you Teabaggers need?

​

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Supreme Court doesn't "make law", they interpret the Constitution. They are the final word on what is or is not "Constitutional".

They don't "interpret" the Constitution (it's written in black & white and says exactly what is says - what is there to "interpret"?!?) - they rule on the Constitutionality of laws or issues. When Obamacare went before the Supreme Court, they weren't "interpreting" the Constitution - they were judging if the AHCA was Constitutional.

It's just painful having to explain this over and over and over to liberals....

Wow.

Actually, that's exactly what the SCOTUS does - they INTERPRET the Constitution.

 

[OriginalShroom]

We're right here - letting our twice-elected President do his job to keep America safe from terrorists - domestic and foreign.

Yeah.. Who cares about the Constitution when the one deciding who is deciding who needs killed is a Liberal, Socialist, half-black Democrat, Right?

Edit:

I forgot some very important words.. "deciding who is deciding"

In no way am do I ever intend on advocating, suggesting, or calling for the killing of an American President.

 

[Vast LWC]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

Are you incensed over the technological upgrade?

Surely, one would assume that a drone must be limited to a single type of ordinance.

Do you feel that the only thing a Drone can shoot is a Hellfire missile?

 

[Vast LWC]

Or is it your assertion that Drones can only be controlled by members of the military?

I imagine if that were the case, it would pose a constitutional dilemma, as the military shouldn't be doing domestic law-enforcement.

But, as far as I can see, there's no reason why a law-enforcement professional couldn't be trained to work a drone, same as a member of the military.

 

[racewright]

Or is it your assertion that Drones can only be controlled by members of the military?

I imagine if that were the case, it would pose a constitutional dilemma, as the military shouldn't be doing domestic law-enforcement.

But, as far as I can see, there's no reason why a law-enforcement professional couldn't be trained to work a drone, same as a member of the military.

And there is no reason why a private citizen should have assault weapons nnnnnnnnaaaaaaa the goverment can be trusted they will never just hurt ya unless ya did something wrong according to them.. LISTEN FOOLS even I cannot belive what I 'm hearing reguarding drones. Ya I'll give up my guns alright you know the saying but with me it will be after a few gun takers are dead first.

Sgt Wright Vietnam 67-68 I was trained to stop Communisum hmmmm socialism
same to me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Concerning the question of rights of non-citizens under the US Constitution, I just posted this -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...tution-apply-to-non-citizens.html#post6923798

 

[Vast LWC]

And there is no reason why a private citizen should have assault weapons nnnnnnnnaaaaaaa the goverment can be trusted they will never just hurt ya unless ya did something wrong according to them.. LISTEN FOOLS even I cannot belive what I 'm hearing reguarding drones. Ya I'll give up my guns alright you know the saying but with me it will be after a few gun takers are dead first.

Sgt Wright Vietnam 67-68 I was trained to stop Communisum hmmmm socialism
same to me.

I'm not sure where I said that private citizens should not own guns.

That's about the opposite of my opinion.

 

[Intense]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?

Are you incensed over the technological upgrade?

Surely, one would assume that a drone must be limited to a single type of ordinance.

Do you feel that the only thing a Drone can shoot is a Hellfire missile?

Law enforcement personnel is supposed to work on due process and protocol. Shoot to kill is the last resort, not original intention. Original intent is to make the arrest. There are procedures to follow.

Do you even have a clue as to the current practices relating to the use of drones or drone targeted assassination? What is the procedure, then? Who decides? On what Merit? what are the ground rules? Who's authority? Who's Jurisdiction? Is checks and balances even applied? Is it under Executive Power and Executive Privilege? Who accounts to who? To what degree?

In the case of targeting Citizens domestically, who has Jurisdiction? Is the Attorney General even involved at all? Questions don't get answered, it's all round-a-bout smoke and mirrors, but that seems to be okay because a Progressive Statist is in charge? Bullshit! Flooded with answers? I'm waiting to hear some.

Explain the process.

 

[zeke]

This whole trumped-up scare tactic is just a bunch of bullshit, as usual.

Tell me:

Does a law-enforcement employed sniper have the right to shoot a suspect that represents an imminent threat to members of the public, or not?

Because, as far as I know, members of law enforcement have always been allowed to use lethal force in the case of imminent threats.

Now:

What is the difference between a sniper shooting someone from a 1/2 mile away, and someone controlling a drone that does the exact same thing?


I understand your argument. However. My complaint when the Patriot Act was implemented was that it opened the door to a slippery slope.

Already, in just two Presidents, we have gone from being able to suspend Habeous Corpus for an American citizen if deemed a terrorist, plus a bunch of other things we Americans wouildn't have thought possible, to killing American citizens in another country who claimed they were a terrorist without trying them, to killing people with drones in countries we are not at war with, to contemplating killing Americans in America without due process.

You see a trend starting to develope here?