Author Topic: Kudos to those Ivory Tower Libs.. (Read 2523 times)

Rolex · « **Reply #60 on:** September 27, 2007, 05:55:38 PM »

And they sank the Maine.

I didn't even know that the US declared war against Iraq or that Iraq was a territory of the US. When did all this happen?

VonMessa · « **Reply #61 on:** September 27, 2007, 05:56:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FBBone
As I've stated before, he has plenty of forums worldwide in which he can spout his nonsense. It's not like we didn't know his true colors before he had his little Q & A session, right? I mean really, he's been running off at the mouth for quite a while. The things he said weren't new. We all knew the character of his person long before his appearance.

I'm NOT saying he should be silenced. I'm not arguing constitutional law, either. I'm saying that, in a time of war, maybe its not in our best interests to let an enemy of the state come here and talk us down. Let him do it somewhere else. That is all.

The bottom line is, he was an invited guest, and on that we can agree. In my opinion though, he should have never been invited. BTW, as was mentioned before, it was really classy for the moderator to attack and insult him before he even uttered a word. After all, who invited him there in the first place and for what reason?

Touche!

Point taken. But, maybe some folks still need to hear it to believe it(what other countries think) My personal observations are that a lot of Americans are WAY too content. Not much heart left. Has faded since 911. I remember then that you couldn't turn your head and not see Old Glory flyin'. Where are they all now?

Donzo · « **Reply #62 on:** September 27, 2007, 06:38:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
You'll have to post the part of the Constitution that says free speech only for US citizens....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The People.

From the preable:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There, that's where it is.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States of America for the People of the United States of America.

Chairboy · « **Reply #63 on:** September 27, 2007, 06:42:45 PM »

Donzo: How do you suggest this be enforced? Should people be required to prove citizenship before saying stuff? Should we carry our passports or birth certificates, for instance?

Oh, followup question: What specific law would be used to stop teh evul furriners from talking?

Stringer · « **Reply #64 on:** September 27, 2007, 08:15:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Donzo
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The People.

From the preable:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There, that's where it is.

Free speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States of America for the People of the United States of America.

It's not there.

The people you mention is in regards to peaceably assemble....

Also, do resident aliens (legal aliens here on green cards) not have the right to free speech because they are not US Citizens?? Those resident aliens that pay taxes, put into social security, and (in my father in laws case) own and operate their own businesses??

You are wrong as wrong can be.....the First Ammendment does not make the Citizen distinction...it doesn't even use the word.

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** September 27, 2007, 08:28:12 PM »

Actually, String, he is partially right.

Quote

The language "We the People" explains that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States does not come from the various states, or even from the peoples of the various states, but rather from the greater entity identified as the people of the United States of America. The Constitution thus serves as a compact or contract between the people of the United States, the several States, and a newly created entity: the federal government of the United States.

The Constitution is indeed a deal between the people of the US (citizens) and their government.

However, he also ignores that fact that the Supremes have repeatedly ruled that non-citizens have most of the rights of citizens.

Quote

In fact, only three constitutional rights—voting in elections, holding certain political offices, and the absolute ability to enter and remain in the country—are denied noncitizens outright. Otherwise, the Constitution grants to “the people” or “persons”—not just to citizens—the rights to due process and equal protection of the law, to freedom of speech and assembly, and to freedom from arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishments.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** September 27, 2007, 08:28:55 PM »

BTW, String.. how ya been? Doing any AH?

Stringer · « **Reply #67 on:** September 27, 2007, 08:43:29 PM »

hey Toad...not bad...busy as heck!!...Been thinking about re-upping the AH sub.....how about you? How's the work load going with you?? I hope all is well!...

Gonna head out west during Thanksgiving to do some pheasant hunting. Might get out there for opening day, but I doubt it...especially since it's early like last year.

We need to do the BBQ thing in the near future!!

The Supreme Court and how the First Ammendment is applied on an every day routine is what I'm basing my opinion on, much as your Supremes quote illustrates.

Donzo · « **Reply #68 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:19:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Donzo: How do you suggest this be enforced? Should people be required to prove citizenship before saying stuff? Should we carry our passports or birth certificates, for instance?

Oh, followup question: What specific law would be used to stop teh evul furriners from talking?

Who said anything about enforcing anything?

As I said before, the whole thing stinks because the university is claiming "freedom of speech" as justification for invited him to speak. That's not justified, he has no such "right" on this soil. Does that make it wrong or illegal that he spoke at the university? No. But let's try to make some noble stand by saying that it's all freedom of speech.

Rolex · « **Reply #69 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:59:38 PM »

Having some nobility is what separates men of quality. Just because someone else (a leader of country or the guy next door) is a handsomehunk, doesn't mean you have to be one too.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #70 on:** September 27, 2007, 11:58:57 PM »

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That one is a citizen or not has nothing to do with the issue of Arzerbazaniidaddad talking at Columbia.

As Congress passed no law prohibiting his speech, his speech was protected from government interferance. He could have said anything he wanted, and not be thrown in jail. If Columbia had chosen to not let him speak, it would not have violated the 1st amendment, as Congress passed no law prohibiting his right to speak.

The 1st amendment does not say I can speak, it says congress cannot prohibit me from speaking. It limits the government, it does not limit me.

Rolex · « **Reply #71 on:** September 28, 2007, 05:43:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Donzo
That's not justified, he has no such "right" on this soil.

You would fail one of the US citizenship test questions since one of the questions is:

"What are two rights only for United States citizens?" (Note: underline not added by me)

They are only four rights granted exclusively to US citizens:

1. apply for a federal job
2. vote
3. run for office
4. carry a U.S. passport

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #72 on:** September 28, 2007, 06:54:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
They are only four rights granted exclusively to US citizens:

More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .

Donzo · « **Reply #73 on:** September 28, 2007, 07:20:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .

So would it be wrong for the US Gov to deny someone entry to US for the sole purpose of a speaking engagement?

VonMessa · « **Reply #74 on:** September 28, 2007, 09:36:36 AM »

quote:Originally posted by Holden McGroin
More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ï¿½ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .

Quote

Originally posted by Donzo
So would it be wrong for the US Gov to deny someone entry to US for the sole purpose of a speaking engagement?

The first amendment prohibits congress from preventing anyone from speaking in this country, however, there is nothing stating the unlawfulness of preventing an individual from entry to the county, to my knowledge.