Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[kaz]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

I'm not a democrat, and really couldn't care less whether you are or aren't pro choice, but perhaps you might explain what you meant by "Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law." What law causes a woman to lose control over her own body by the feds? Or how has the fed govt taken control of women's bodies?

Obviously you do care if I'm pro-choice or pro-life given that you went out of your way to say that I am pro-life when I am pro-choice and have been arguing that in posts that you read. As to the Federal government, they have no say over abortion at all either way since abortion isn't in the Constitution and is therefore a power that is reserved for the State or better yet the people themselves.

However, in addition, to make a law to ban abortion at the Federal level would be a clear intrusion into the liberty of a woman to control her own body. The Federal government Constitutionally needs to stay out of abortion completely. At the State level, I support abortion remaining legal and if that's the way it is, in most States it will be. They will have varying levels of limits, such as the last trimester it's allowed and that sort of thing, but it will only be banned in a handful of States and those States are so socially conservative they should have that right. It's how our country was set up.

And here's an idea on your Democrat dilemma. Instead of proving you're not a Democrat by saying you're not a Democrat, why don't you try disagreeing with Democrats sometimes? If you always agree with them, why does it bother you to say you are one?

 

[there4eyeM]

Some believe in free will. Some do not. Some aren't sure. It is not a proven fact, it is not clearly, universally understood. That translates into 'vague'. Perhaps "inherent" is what is being "conflated" with "believed" or "wished to be true".

 

[bendog]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

I'm not a democrat, and really couldn't care less whether you are or aren't pro choice, but perhaps you might explain what you meant by "Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law." What law causes a woman to lose control over her own body by the feds? Or how has the fed govt taken control of women's bodies?

Obviously you do care if I'm pro-choice or pro-life given that you went out of your way to say that I am pro-life when I am pro-choice and have been arguing that in posts that you read. As to the Federal government, they have no say over abortion at all either way since abortion isn't in the Constitution and is therefore a power that is reserved for the State or better yet the people themselves.

However, in addition, to make a law to ban abortion at the Federal level would be a clear intrusion into the liberty of a woman to control her own body. The Federal government Constitutionally needs to stay out of abortion completely. At the State level, I support abortion remaining legal and if that's the way it is, in most States it will be. They will have varying levels of limits, such as the last trimester it's allowed and that sort of thing, but it will only be banned in a handful of States and those States are so socially conservative they should have that right. It's how our country was set up.

And here's an idea on your Democrat dilemma. Instead of proving you're not a Democrat by saying you're not a Democrat, why don't you try disagreeing with Democrats sometimes? If you always agree with them, why does it bother you to say you are one?

I just wondered WTF you could possibly have been thinking about the gummit taking away women's life liberty or whatever the FUCK. But in retrospect I don't give fuck about whatever fuck you could possibly be fucking thinking you stupid fuck

 

[Cellblock2429]

?---- Because the far left is Hell bent on destroying this nation as it was founded. And the best way is to dilute our sacred Constitution by applying it in ways it was never intended. Sorry it's not more complicated than that.

 

[dblack]

Some believe in free will. Some do not. Some aren't sure. It is not a proven fact, it is not clearly, universally understood. That translates into 'vague'. Perhaps "inherent" is what is being "conflated" with "believed" or "wished to be true".

Volition is probably a better term for it. Leaves out all the equivocation piled on 'free will'. And the fact that you're posting is solid evidence that volition is real, whether you believe in it or not.

 

[kaz]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

I'm not a democrat, and really couldn't care less whether you are or aren't pro choice, but perhaps you might explain what you meant by "Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law." What law causes a woman to lose control over her own body by the feds? Or how has the fed govt taken control of women's bodies?

Obviously you do care if I'm pro-choice or pro-life given that you went out of your way to say that I am pro-life when I am pro-choice and have been arguing that in posts that you read. As to the Federal government, they have no say over abortion at all either way since abortion isn't in the Constitution and is therefore a power that is reserved for the State or better yet the people themselves.

However, in addition, to make a law to ban abortion at the Federal level would be a clear intrusion into the liberty of a woman to control her own body. The Federal government Constitutionally needs to stay out of abortion completely. At the State level, I support abortion remaining legal and if that's the way it is, in most States it will be. They will have varying levels of limits, such as the last trimester it's allowed and that sort of thing, but it will only be banned in a handful of States and those States are so socially conservative they should have that right. It's how our country was set up.

And here's an idea on your Democrat dilemma. Instead of proving you're not a Democrat by saying you're not a Democrat, why don't you try disagreeing with Democrats sometimes? If you always agree with them, why does it bother you to say you are one?

I just wondered WTF you could possibly have been thinking about the gummit taking away women's life liberty or whatever the FUCK. But in retrospect I don't give fuck about whatever fuck you could possibly be fucking thinking you stupid fuck

You sure post a lot on topics you repeatedly claim to not care about. And calling me stupid after your incoherent rant on not caring about what you are replying to ... again ... is pretty funny, actually. And you still don't grasp that I'm pro-choice, do you, Holmes?

 

[dblack]

Some believe in free will. Some do not. Some aren't sure. It is not a proven fact, it is not clearly, universally understood. That translates into 'vague'. Perhaps "inherent" is what is being "conflated" with "believed" or "wished to be true".

Volition is probably a better term for it. Leaves out all the equivocation piled on 'free will'. And the fact that you're posting is solid evidence that volition is real, whether you believe in it or not.

And 'inherent' is what I meant, not 'believed'. The ability to think and act on one's thoughts is inherent in the definition of a human. In fact, most of us would consider a being unable to think or act on those thoughts as not fully human.

 

[jc456]

There is no city that is actually granting sanctuary

STFU....

I think you will find that a particular city may not be enforcing certain laws, but they have never granted actual sanctuary

is there a difference?

 

[jc456]

Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens

BULLSHIT you are LYING!!!!!!~! ILLEGALS all committed a crime by coming here illegally so they all are criminals! It is pathetic to even read your one line lies

violent crimes, son?

what's more violent than taking someone's job away?

 

[jc456]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

 

[jc456]

Gotcha, the Constitution was a suicide pact.

So what Constitutional right were non-Citizens deprived of?

They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.

IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

THe "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in is terrorists flooding into our country by the hundreds.

You really got to chill out. Where oh where are these terrorists of yours?

the ones waiting for the signal out of the additional thousands that obummer let in on an EO.

 

[jc456]

They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.

IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

THe "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in is terrorists flooding into our country by the hundreds.

You really got to chill out. Where oh where are these terrorists of yours?

Here's one:

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on thePromenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8] The driver wasMohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian resident of France.[9][10] The attack ended following an exchange of gunfire, during which Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was shot and killed by police.

Here's a question you leftwing snowflakes never want to answer: What do we gain by importing these Muslim savages? How does this policy benefit the American people?

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

why do we need them I believe was the question.

 

[jc456]

You really got to chill out. Where oh where are these terrorists of yours?

Here's one:

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on thePromenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8] The driver wasMohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian resident of France.[9][10] The attack ended following an exchange of gunfire, during which Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was shot and killed by police.

Here's a question you leftwing snowflakes never want to answer: What do we gain by importing these Muslim savages? How does this policy benefit the American people?

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

It's true not every muslim is a savage, but that also doesn't mean you should lull yourself to sleep. Not every muslim who emigrated to France was a savage but now there are regions where French law is scorned upon by the inhabitants who prefer Shariah and force their women to stay home. Good luck changing this now! soon France and other countries will have seperate countries inside themselves. How did that ever happen?

It's not to say that Muslims are savages, it's that it's wise to recognize our cultures are at odds with each other. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, but recognizing that they also have a huge responsibility themselves to respect and assimilate inside any host country that accepts them.

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

he's fking spot on.

here's a question, do they believe in shira law?

 

[G.T.]

are rights granted by the creator or by the american government

 

[brummelben]

Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens

BULLSHIT you are LYING!!!!!!~! ILLEGALS all committed a crime by coming here illegally so they all are criminals! It is pathetic to even read your one line lies

violent crimes, son?

what's more violent than taking someone's job away?

Who is taking anyones job away? Most of what illegals do, is work that we won't do.

 

[jc456]

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

I obviously know more than you about Islam. Do you believe it's a "religion of peace?"

I believe that you don't know shit about that religion

But you can't prove it, can you?

Yes, its hard to prove that your kind are completely ignorant, but you tend to prove it yourselves

so you can't prove it. thanks for playing

 

[brummelben]

Here's one:

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on thePromenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8] The driver wasMohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian resident of France.[9][10] The attack ended following an exchange of gunfire, during which Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was shot and killed by police.

Here's a question you leftwing snowflakes never want to answer: What do we gain by importing these Muslim savages? How does this policy benefit the American people?

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

It's true not every muslim is a savage, but that also doesn't mean you should lull yourself to sleep. Not every muslim who emigrated to France was a savage but now there are regions where French law is scorned upon by the inhabitants who prefer Shariah and force their women to stay home. Good luck changing this now! soon France and other countries will have seperate countries inside themselves. How did that ever happen?

It's not to say that Muslims are savages, it's that it's wise to recognize our cultures are at odds with each other. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, but recognizing that they also have a huge responsibility themselves to respect and assimilate inside any host country that accepts them.

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

he's fking spot on.

here's a question, do they believe in shira law?

Here's one:

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on thePromenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8] The driver wasMohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a Tunisian resident of France.[9][10] The attack ended following an exchange of gunfire, during which Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was shot and killed by police.

Here's a question you leftwing snowflakes never want to answer: What do we gain by importing these Muslim savages? How does this policy benefit the American people?

Is every Muslim who enters the US a savage, or do they represent a tiny portion of all the people.

It's true not every muslim is a savage, but that also doesn't mean you should lull yourself to sleep. Not every muslim who emigrated to France was a savage but now there are regions where French law is scorned upon by the inhabitants who prefer Shariah and force their women to stay home. Good luck changing this now! soon France and other countries will have seperate countries inside themselves. How did that ever happen?

It's not to say that Muslims are savages, it's that it's wise to recognize our cultures are at odds with each other. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, but recognizing that they also have a huge responsibility themselves to respect and assimilate inside any host country that accepts them.

I disagree. Anyone who believes the bloodthirsty ravings of the madman Muhammad is a savage.

Obviously you know shit about that religion. Piss on you

he's fking spot on.

here's a question, do they believe in shira law?

does anyone in this country?

 

[dblack]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

what rights?

All of them.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.

That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.

And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.

/---- There are a few rights reserved just for citizens, the right to vote, to hold most federal jobs and the right to run for political office.

"But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." - Slate.com

 

[jc456]

Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens

BULLSHIT you are LYING!!!!!!~! ILLEGALS all committed a crime by coming here illegally so they all are criminals! It is pathetic to even read your one line lies

violent crimes, son?

what's more violent than taking someone's job away?

Who is taking anyones job away? Most of what illegals do, is work that we won't do.

that's an old line bubba.