Im a bigot, racist and anti-liberal

[Fatty]

It is defined by the use of the word "citizen" throughout, as well as more generalized phrases such as "the people of the united states", etc.

"....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

All encompassing amendments such as slavery are more direct, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It wasn't until the 11th or so that citizen replaced "the people" from that point on.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Leslie]

Just for clarification's sake...the Bill of Rights consists of the first ten ammendments to the Constitution.  These ammendments are there to limit Congress as to what they can and can't do, and only apply to individuals in an indirect way...by limiting Congress' actions, i.e. the law as handed down by Congress.  If this is not so, please correct me.

If you've ever had the privilege of talking with men or women who lived during WWII, you will become aware that many sacrifices were made on the part of all.  Business as usual was not the order of the day.  If we were to apply the security standards of that time period to the present day, it is entirely possible that the internet itself would be shut down as an extreme measure.  Game shows such as Wheel of Fortune would probably be censored or removed from the air because of the possibility of codes being passed to foreign agents, etc...  This would only be a small inconvenience compared to the rationing of gasoline, and especially tires for your car.  You were only allowed one set during the entire war.  There was an especially keen black market in tires and electric motors back then.  Hardly anything that we take for granted in times of peace, could be had except through the black market.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I hope it doesn't come to this, but I don't see why the present situation should be any different in regards to maintaining the security of American soil, if that's what it takes.

Sandman, what was Ben Franklin refering to when he made that statement?  Was he talking about the Stamp Act or Tea Tax?

Les

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Hortlund
US constitution = US law

US law is only vald in places where the US has jurisdiction. That limits the reach of US law to the land mass of the USA, US ships and aircraft, the air above US territory, and the territorial waters of the USA.

Anyone caught inside those boundaries are a subject to US jurisdiction and thus also US law.

As for us outside the US, please leave us alone.

You're fooling yourself, Hortlund. I seem to recall a Coast Guard ship boarding a cargo ship last year suspected of drug trafficking. The ship wasn't in U.S. water, wasn't headed for a U.S. port and had no U.S. citizens on board. That didn't seem to stop them.

Also... back to Fatty's point that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens... A good example is California's Proposition 187. The proposition attempted to deny schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants (non-citizens) and was supported by a good majority of the voters (citizens). The Supreme Court struck it down as un-Constitutional.

[Kanth]

Only took 6 posts =)

wtg Nuke!!!

Kanthy

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As I recall, Hitler was rather fond of racial profiling.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Fatty
It is defined by the use of the word "citizen" throughout, as well as more generalized phrases such as "the people of the united states", etc.

"....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

All encompassing amendments such as slavery are more direct, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It wasn't until the 11th or so that citizen replaced "the people" from that point on.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's a good argument, but the Supreme Court says that "the People" applies to all in this country and not just citizens or naturalized citizens.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


You're fooling yourself, Hortlund. I seem to recall a Coast Guard ship boarding a cargo ship last year suspected of drug trafficking. The ship wasn't in U.S. water, wasn't headed for a U.S. port and had no U.S. citizens on board. That didn't seem to stop them.

Also... back to Fatty's point that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens... A good example is California's Proposition 187. The proposition attempted to deny schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants (non-citizens) and was supported by a good majority of the voters (citizens). The Supreme Court struck it down as un-Constitutional.

The question is whether I am wrong or if the US coast guard ship was in violation of international law.

The question of citizenship is irrelevant inside US territory. I suspect that US law is applicable on US citizens when they are abroad, but I'm not sure.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Leslie
Sandman, what was Ben Franklin refering to when he made that statement?  Was he talking about the Stamp Act or Tea Tax?

Les

I'm not sure. The quote is found throughout Revolutionary War history... even as early as 1755. Franklin used it as a motto for his 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


I'm not sure. The quote is found throughout Revolutionary War history... even as early as 1755. Franklin used it as a motto for his 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

 It's my favorite Franklin quote and I used it liberaly in the 90's when tirading against the democrats.  We should listen to those words too, our elected officials don't.  They gave us the "patriot act" that should tell us alot right there.

 Everyday I move a bit closer to Weazel's camp of hate everything governement......

[midnight Target]

This is what we must guard against:

It ain't profiling, it's playing the odds.

By this logic we should detain everyone who is (according to the odds) more likely to commit a crime.

I think the people on this BBS are intelligent enough to see where this could lead.

BTW all white males with close cropped hair are more likely to blow up federal buildings. I can prove it too.

Christians are much more likely to attack Family Planning clinics. I think we should put up a road block in front of each clinic and check every man for a circumcision. Sikboy wishes to volunteer for the duty.        (just playing the odds)

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Udie




 Does that law say anything about the situation that we find ourselves in?


 The more I think about this the more I'm pissed at our congress/government.   We had the effing warning signs for the past 10+ years that this stuff was headed our way and they did NOTHING to prepair for it.   Both parties share equally too.   Lousey sons of biatches are more worried about keeping their sorry tulips in office than doing what we actually send them there for.

If you check the history of naturalization laws, you'll find that they have constantly been "tweaked" to fit the current situation.

[Fatty]

Sandman my understanding on 187's defeat was that it was primarily based on the view it was an attempt to regulate immigration at the state level, which is unconstitutional. (and also a reference to the legal requirement that children attend school thru the appropriate age (16?))

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Udie




 It's my favorite Franklin quote and I used it liberaly in the 90's when tirading against the democrats.  We should listen to those words too, our elected officials don't.  They gave us the "patriot act" that should tell us alot right there.

 Everyday I move a bit closer to Weazel's camp of hate everything governement......

I've always have liked, "You get the government that you deserve."

I don't know who said it though.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM


If you check the history of naturalization laws, you'll find that they have constantly been "tweaked" to fit the current situation.

 Yes they have, that has nothing to do with my statement about my contempt for our government.  I think it needs a good tweeking right now.  You let too many people in and they will try and make it like home.  They need to assimilate into our society like all the great imigrants of the early 20th century.

 Now we have a tangled knot of a mess.  How do we be fair in this situation?  There's possibly a large number of arab terrorist in our country right now just waiting.   How do we justify to the future victoms families that we could have stopped the terrorist by sending all arabs back home?  How do we justify to the "good" arabs that they have to be sent back to protect naturalized citizens?   I'm just a big city country boy doper who can't think of big solutions to HUGE problems.   I do know that if we send them all back they can't hit us here.  That doesn't mean I want to send my friends back to Iran, but I don't know what else to do to really stop the terrorist from hurting us again, and I don't want to see open warfair against arabs in the streets of the USA which is what I fear will happen if they start homicide bombings here......


 I admit it, I'm lost and don't know what to do about this thing that has been forced upon us......

[midnight Target]

According to the ACLU website prop 187 was struck down because it usurped the supremacy of the US Constitution.


ACLU on 187

[KG45]

lest we forget -

the worst act of terrorism in the US before 9/11, the bombing of the Murrah Bldg.  in 1995 was perpertrated by....

...a blonde haired, blue eyed, white boy, militia type, RWer.

when do we begin the profiling of these guys?