Is the Preamble part of the Constitution?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that opening
phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
have no constitutional rights.
Peter Franks
The preamble is part of the Constitution (proper), but no authority is
delegated -- it is merely prefatory text that gives an indication of the
purpose of the document.
The Amendments also have a preamble, and it is arguably more
interesting. Similarly, it is prefatory text, and also gives an
indication of the purpose of the amendments. Similarly, no constraint
is established, however, it is quite clear as to how the amendments are
to be applied and interpreted.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> > I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
> > to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
> > Constitution.
>
> >http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>
> > As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
> > words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
> > say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
>
> > The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that opening
> > phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
> > uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
> > have no constitutional rights.
>
> The preamble is part of the Constitution (proper), but no authority is
> delegated -- it is merely prefatory text that gives an indication of the
> purpose of the document.
>
Ok - but as i said in the first post, the preamble does very strongly
support the notion that the words "person" and "people" refer to
citizens of the United States and that is very important since the SC
is constantly telling us that illegals have constitutional rights.!!!!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> The Amendments also have a preamble,
They do? This link doesn't show any
Naughtius
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
> to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
> Constitution.
I've been told You're An Idiot...
UNlike Your Assertion, *that* Does NOT seem Preposterous To Me...
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>
> As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
> words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
> say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
Beats me... All I can say In That Regard is that The ONLY Personage
claiming The Preamble is - or is NOT - Part & Parcel of The
*Constitution* is a Rightard Shit-Fer-rains...
>
> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C
Yeah... The *ozes* like to say The Same Thing...
Go figger...
> because that opening
> phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
> uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
> have no constitutional rights.
??? !!! ?!? WHAT?!?!?
Do YOU... Standing Back and REviewing Your Last INcomprehensible,
IMpenetrable, and CHAOTIC Sentence above, have ANY IDEA just how
UTTERLY, PROFOUNDLY and IRRETRIEVABLY CONFOUNDED You Are?
Naughtius "We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident..." Maximus
Peter Franks
Try a different link; e.g.:
Or you can take a look at the original document:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html
Peter Franks
Well, that's a loaded question. You don't have constitutional rights,
you have constitutional protections.
What "constitutional rights" are you questioning?
Deadrat
news:7600b4bb-ce73-4351...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
> to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
> Constitution.
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>
> As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
> words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
> say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
No one says it's not part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court says that
no powers flow from it, that it's just a formal introduction.
>
> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that opening
> phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
> uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
> have no constitutional rights.
Sorry, loser, but that's not how the law operates. If that's your own
ignorant *interpretation* that's a different thing and one we can safely
ignore.
The premable just says why; it doesn't say what or how.
richard
MURDERERS wrote:
Technically, as I see it, the two words are applied as to when those words
were written. That is, "Free men" were people and persons. This did not
include, blacks, slaves, native indians and others.
SCOTUS later defined those words to mean, "any person" within the
boundaries of the country, legal or not.
The Preamble is most definitely a part of the Constitution, only thing is,
there is nothing in it that could be enforcable as a law.
Mitchell Holman
news:7600b4bb-ce73-4351...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
That's odd, considering how it conservatives who dismiss
the preamble to the Second Amendment.
What do the first four words say, again?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
In 1982 in plyler v doe, the SC said illegals have the right to free
k-12 education.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:7uts4146utqw$.1tfe4pmm90gl5$.d...@40tude.net:
>
> SCOTUS later defined those words to mean, "any person" within the
> boundaries of the country, legal or not.
>
But how can they say that when the preamble makes it clear that "people"
refers to citizens.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
035598...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 16, 7:50�pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
>> to me. �This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
>> Constitution.
>
> I've been told You're An Idiot...
>
HAHAHA. Looks like i infuriated you again. HAHA
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:Y7adnWDAWsqzMLTW...@giganews.com:
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote
> in
>>
>> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that
>> opening phrase "We the people of the United States" means that
>> whenever the C uses words like people or persons, it means citizens
>> and thus illegals have no constitutional rights.
>
> Sorry, loser, but that's not how the law operates. If that's your own
> ignorant *interpretation* that's a different thing and one we can
> safely ignore.
>
> The premable just says why; it doesn't say what or how.
But it does seem to clarify what words like "people" and "person" mean.
The preamble says they mean citizens while the SC says they mean everyone
even illegals!!!
richard
wrote:
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
And exactly how do you fight SCOTUS for being wrong?
There is no way to do that. Period.
Deadrat
september.org:
Really? You got selective incorporation from reading the text of the 14th
Amendment? How did you figure that federal juries must have 12 members and
come to a unanimous verdict to convict?
Deadrat
news:605b660e-f880-4359...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Try sounding out the words, Speedy. It's like this: "We the People of the
United States are establishing this governmental framework to protect
everybody's rights, not just ours."
Deadrat
news:e752c7e9-1be1-4e53...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
Here's what they actually said, Speedy: Everyone in the jurisdiction of
the Constitution is entitled to equal protection of the law. So in
general, no singling out groups of people and depriving them of the
benefits of the law.
Deadrat
news:Xns9CE3DFB3F7A39r...@216.168.3.70:
1. Because it is clear that the preamble says only who is making the rules,
not what they rules are. The latter follows the preamble.
2. Because it sucks to be you.
Deadrat
news:Xns9CE3E033CB169r...@216.168.3.70:
But the preamble just identifies the people providing the rules. Not to
whom the rules apply.
Get it yet, loser?
Peter Franks
Not impossible, but /very/ difficult, see Article V.
One of the weaknesses of the US constitution.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:rxrf3t57fh3i$.1il6kfcbb7wwb$.d...@40tude.net:
There's only one check on the SC and that's impeachment and removal by
congress.
Peter Franks
Sorry, I don't follow. Could you reword the question?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:soednbvLPqt7UbTW...@giganews.com:
HAHAHA. As usual, you don't even understand what we're talking about. The
preamble makes it clear that the word "people" means citizens not illegals.
do you enjoy being the board laughingstock? HAHA
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:soednbrLPqu_ULTW...@giganews.com:
HAHAHA. Again you make a fool of yourself by not even understanding the
issue. HAHAHA
Deadrat
news:Xns9CE3EF2D8B38ri...@216.168.3.70:
Congress also controls the size of the Court and it's appellate
jurisdiction, you ignoramus.
Deadrat
Sure. If the application and interpretation of the amendments is so
clear, please explain how to derive selective incorporation of rights and
immunities from the 14th Amendment. Also, I can't find which amendment
clearly demands that a federal jury comprise 12 members and reach a
guilty verdict only by unanmous vote.
I was hoping you could enlighten me.
Deadrat
Oh, Sparky, that laughter you're hearing isn't directed at me. Even if
the preamble makes it clear that it's the citizens of the United States
who are claiming authorship -- and notice that it says "people" and not
citizens -- that's all it's doing. For the contents, you have to look
past the list of authors.
Sucks to be you, a loser ignoramus, doesn't it?
Deadrat
Keep laughin', Sparky. You're the one who thinks a byline is the same
thing as the contents.
ZerkonXXXX
wrote:
> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous to
> me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
> Constitution.
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>
> As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
> words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone say
> the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
>
> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that opening
> phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
> uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
> have no constitutional rights.
Everything in the Constitution is part of it.
To what case are you are referring?
As far as your 'libs' go, regarding illegal immigrants...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3887721/
ZerkonXXXX
> The preamble is part of the Constitution (proper), but no authority is
> delegated -- it is merely prefatory text that gives an indication of the
> purpose of the document.
A statement of authority is certainly declared as it defines by what or
whose power "ordains and establishes" the defined government.
Purpose had to sit on some authority so authority is declared not
delegated.
Peter Franks
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:rxrf3t57fh3i$.1il6kfcbb7wwb$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:59:28 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>> news:7uts4146utqw$.1tfe4pmm90gl5$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>> SCOTUS later defined those words to mean, "any person" within the
>>>> boundaries of the country, legal or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But how can they say that when the preamble makes it clear that
>>> "people" refers to citizens.
>> And exactly how do you fight SCOTUS for being wrong?
>> There is no way to do that. Period.
>>
>
> There's only one check on the SC and that's impeachment and removal by
> congress.
Not quite. Removal does nothing for precedent, once decided, there are
only three ways to reverse the decision:
1) The supreme Court reverses itself in a subsequent case.
2) The Constitution is amended per Article V.
3) The safeguards mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are invoked.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:pan.2009.12...@erkonx.net:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:50:09 -0800, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS wrote:
>
>> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
>> to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>>
>> As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
>> words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
>> say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
>>
>> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that
>> opening phrase "We the people of the United States" means that
>> whenever the C uses words like people or persons, it means citizens
>> and thus illegals have no constitutional rights.
>
> Everything in the Constitution is part of it.
>
Libs like to say it's NOT in the constitution. I think that's nonsense but
that's what they say.
Deadrat
news:Xns9CE46C8379BAAr...@216.168.3.70:
Quit lying. Nobody claims the preamble isn't part of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court says it provides no basis for interpreting the rest of
the document.
Peter Franks
If that is true, then it is wrong. The preambles most definitely SHOULD
be used in interpreting the rest of the document.
Bert Hyman
<no...@none.com> wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> Quit lying. Nobody claims the preamble isn't part of the
>> Constitution. The Supreme Court says it provides no basis for
>> interpreting the rest of the document.
>
> If that is true, then it is wrong. The preambles most definitely
> SHOULD be used in interpreting the rest of the document.
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any
department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has
often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and
purpose of the Constitution.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/010.pdf
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:pNudnSZLPuCyG7fW...@giganews.com:
>
> Quit lying. Nobody claims the preamble isn't part of the Constitution.
> The Supreme Court says it provides no basis for interpreting the rest of
> the document.
Hey stupid. That's the same as saying it's not in the constitution. THINK,
you hater.
Deadrat
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me stupid.
Is the salutation of a letter part of the letter? Can you tell anything
about the contents of the letter from the salutation?
Did you figure out that the answers are (in order) "yes" and "no"?
Can you figure out now that the preamble to the Constitution won't allow
you to dehumanize illegal immigrants?
The premable to the Constitution is a formal salutation. It tells you who
wrote the thing and why they wrote it. To find out how the government
operates, at the very least, you have to read the Articles. You many skip
the preamble.
The Supreme Court has said that there are no powers derived from or
restricted by the preamble.
I know you don't like that, but there it is, you ignoramus.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:NcSdnT0Py5owh7bW...@giganews.com:
>
> Can you figure out now that the preamble to the Constitution won't
> allow you to dehumanize illegal immigrants?
>
Again you display your incredible stupidity. No one is saying illegals are
non-human. The issue is does the constitution grant them any rights and
the preamble indicates the answer is no. THINK, you america-hater.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
No. Take for an example, plyler v doe 1982. That's the case where the SC
said illegals have the constitutional right to free k-12 education.
Congress could pass a law banning the admission of illegals into public
schools and say that any judge who overturns this will be removed from
office on obvious grounds of taking bribes.
The SC would not overturn that law.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:NcSdnT0Py5owh7bW...@giganews.com:
>
>
>>
>> Can you figure out now that the preamble to the Constitution won't
>> allow you to dehumanize illegal immigrants?
>>
>
You don't need borders if they are ignored.
Deadrat
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:NcSdnT0Py5owh7bW...@giganews.com:
>
>
>>
>> Can you figure out now that the preamble to the Constitution won't
>> allow you to dehumanize illegal immigrants?
>>
>
> Again you display your incredible stupidity.
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me stupid.
> No one is saying illegals are non-human.
How about you, trying to deprive them of the Constitutional protections
for rights that all human have as a result of their humanity?
> The issue is does the constitution grant them any rights
There is no "issue" here. Except the fact that you don't understand that
the Constitution doesn't grant rights; it protects them. For everyone
under its jurisdiction.
> and the preamble indicates the answer is no.
The preamble doesn't "indicate" any such thing. And Supreme Court
rulings say otherwise.
> THINK, you america-hater.
One of the finest principles of American jurisprudence is that rights are
inherent and accrue to everyone as the result of their humanity. It is
one of our proudest struggles to grant Constitutional protections to
everyone under its jurisdiction.
Why do *you* hate American principles? Why do you embrace the worst
failures of our history?
Is it just fear?
Deadrat
news:Xns9CE5631018086r...@216.168.3.70:
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in
> news:hgdg1c$ct$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There's only one check on the SC and that's impeachment and removal
>>> by congress.
>>
>> Not quite. Removal does nothing for precedent, once decided, there
>> are only three ways to reverse the decision:
>>
>> 1) The supreme Court reverses itself in a subsequent case.
>>
>> 2) The Constitution is amended per Article V.
>>
>> 3) The safeguards mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are
>> invoked.
>>
>
> No. Take for an example, plyler v doe 1982. That's the case where
> the SC said illegals have the constitutional right to free k-12
> education.
It's called equal protection; look it up.
> Congress could pass a law banning the admission of illegals
> into public schools
Not a law that would survive Supreme Court scrutiny on federalist
principles.
> and say that any judge who overturns this will be
> removed from office on obvious grounds of taking bribes.
Not a law that would survive Supreme Court scrutiny about bills of
attainder and extra-Constitutional procedures.
>
> The SC would not overturn that law.
In a second.
Deadrat
news:4b2bbc81$0$7837$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
> On 12/18/2009 11:39 AM, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
>> news:NcSdnT0Py5owh7bW...@giganews.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Can you figure out now that the preamble to the Constitution won't
>>> allow you to dehumanize illegal immigrants?
>>>
>>
>
> You don't need borders if they are ignored.
Thanks for sharing. What does this have to do with the Constitution?
<snip/>
Peter Franks
None of that is constitutionally sound.
Josh
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:rxrf3t57fh3i$.1il6kfcbb7wwb$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:59:28 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>> news:7uts4146utqw$.1tfe4pmm90gl5$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>> SCOTUS later defined those words to mean, "any person" within the
>>>> boundaries of the country, legal or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But how can they say that when the preamble makes it clear that
>>> "people" refers to citizens.
>> And exactly how do you fight SCOTUS for being wrong?
>> There is no way to do that. Period.
>>
>
> There's only one check on the SC and that's impeachment and removal by
> congress.
Vote for like-minded Senators and a President, and you will get the
Court you desire.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:7uts4146utqw$.1tfe4pmm90gl5$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>
>> SCOTUS later defined those words to mean, "any person" within the
>> boundaries of the country, legal or not.
>>
>
>
> But how can they say that when the preamble makes it clear that "people"
> refers to citizens.
I don't see how it does. "We the people of the United States" merely
identifies a *subset* of people.
Also, the 14th Amendment distinguishes between citizens and people:
"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."
So, not all persons are citizens.
Josh Rosenbluth
johnny@.
It's strange how two people can read something and interpret it differently.
Even The Supreme Court does it. It's almost five to four every time.
Peter Franks
BIG failure of the Constitution.
Peter Franks
Who defines what a person is?
Deadrat
news:hgh2eq$lvs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Really? What's "almost five to four"? 6-3? Or do you mean almost every
time?
Brown v Board was 9-0.
johnny@.
Look what has happened to our schools. All nine of them really screwed
up, because they thought they were doing the right thing.
Deadrat
For the feds, it the United States Code. A person is either a legal
fiction like a corporation or an individual. This does seems to just kick
the problem down the road.
An individual is a separate and independent human being, capable of holding
legal rights and discharging legal duties. One test is whether the entity
may be represented by a lawyer in court.
Now, if we could only determine whether a lawyer is a human being.
Deadrat
news:hgh3p5$tjt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
What do you think happened to our schools? Do you believe in a pre-1954
golden age in which everyone got an education but just with people of the
same skin color? Do you believe that whatever bad has happened to public
education is the fault of desegregation?
> All nine of them really
> screwed up, because they thought they were doing the right thing.
Is there any doubt that overturning Plessy was "the right thing"?
I'm guessing you're white. How'd I do?
johnny@.
They're not. They will accept money from anyone. Human beings won't.
Mr.Sandman
If it is not obvious to you what a person is, then maybe you're an ape
in disguise. Or maybe half-ape.
Note well: All persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
Peter Franks
Is a fetus a person?
Is a slave a person?
Peter Franks
So the if the USC says that slaves aren't people, then they aren't people?
Deadrat
news:hgh4rd$spr$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
Damned, dirty ape!
Er, sorry.
This question doesn't have quite such an obvious answer. Is a fetus a
person? A premature infant with lungs so underdevloped that it can't
breathe on its own? How about an ancephalic infant? How about someone in
a persistent vegetative state? How about patients undergoing operations
in which they rely on artificial pumps to circulate cooled blood. (Such
patients have flat-lined EEGs and EKGs during the operation.) Those in
cryogenic storage?
> Note well: All persons are entitled to the equal protection of the
> laws.
Noted.
Deadrat
This is exactly what the Supreme Court once said. In Dred Scot v Sanford
60US393 (1857). Naturally, this wasn't a statement of phylogeny. I
think everyone agreed that slaves were biologically homo sapiens. But
the Court didn't recognize them as persons in the legal sense as they
were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect." And that included the right to sue in court.
johnny@.
Not illegal Mexicans. They can't work here, they can't vote, they can't
join the military, but they can be deported or go to jail for just being
in this country. Even immigrants that have taken The Oath of Allegiance
can lose their citizenship, and be deported. They are not protected by
all of our laws, just some of them. Natural born citizens can't be
deported.
The fourteenth amendment was written specifically for black people, and
former slaves. It does not apply to illegal aliens that have broken our
laws by entering without permission. They committed a crime as soon as
they crossed the border illegally, and their only right is to be arrested.
Mr.Sandman
A fetus is a potential person as opposed to an actual person.
>
> Is a slave a person?
A slave was a person who had his freedom taken away from him for a time.
In many countries that practiced slavery they had laws that enabled the
slave to earn his way out of it.
In the United States, many states passed self-serving laws to keep
slaves in bondage for life.
johnny@.
Sort of like Mexico.
Mr.Sandman
did not have the right to vote until recently although they were
citizens. The next big step in the evolution of human rights will be in
the area of migration and citizenship.
The Founding Fathers did not believe in any restriction on migration.
Beam Me Up Scotty
When is a life a fetus or a fetus a life, and when is it a baby.
Why take a life, be it called a fetus or baby?
How do you guarantee that you killed a fetus and not a baby?
the only way to guarantee it is to give an exact time and date that the
fetus becomes a baby.... can you do that?
I solve the question by saying just don't kill any until you have all
the correct answers to all the questions.
Josh
I agree that "equal protection" does not mean aliens (legal or not) are
always treated identically to citizens (e.g., voting rights). But ...
> The fourteenth amendment was written specifically for black people, and
> former slaves. It does not apply to illegal aliens that have broken our
> laws by entering without permission. They committed a crime as soon as
> they crossed the border illegally, and their only right is to be arrested.
... the plain text of the 14th Amendment says "persons", and makes no
distinctions between citizens, legal aliens, and illegal aliens. So
whatever "equal protection" means, it must apply to illegal aliens.
Josh Rosenbluth
johnny@.
I believe they did.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has
been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a
people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language,
professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of
government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their
joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a
long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and
independence.
John Jay
Josh
A fetus becomes a person (in the 14th Amendment sense) when it is no
longer inside the mother.
Josh Rosenbluth
Deadrat
news:hghava$stc$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Sorry, illegal Mexicans, too.
> They can't work here, they can't vote, they
> can't join the military, but they can be deported or go to jail for
> just being in this country.
This is true. Perhaps you don't understand what "equal protection"
means. It doesn't mean that everyone in this country must be treated
identically.
> Even immigrants that have taken The Oath
> of Allegiance can lose their citizenship, and be deported.
Only if they obtained their citizenship by fraud.
> They are
> not protected by all of our laws, just some of them.
> Natural born citizens can't be deported.
No citizen may be deported.
>
> The fourteenth amendment was written specifically for black people,
> and former slaves.
It was. You do realize that this doesn't matter, right?
> It does not apply to illegal aliens that have
> broken our laws by entering without permission. They committed a
> crime as soon as they crossed the border illegally, and their only
> right is to be arrested.
If this is simply your benighted xenophobic opinion of how things ought
to be, then that's fine. You are entitled to your fear-based reasoning.
But it's not the state of the law, based on our founder's principles.
These are noble principles, even (as has been pointed out often), the
founders failed to live up to them. Try to live up to their ideals, and
not down to their failings.
Try this hypothetical. The 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual
punishment. Does this Constitutional protection apply to illegal
immigrants, or may we legally draw and quarter them upon conviction for
failure to obtain a visa?
johnny@.
In your opinion. If someone shoots a pregnant woman, and kills her
fetus, that person can be charged with murder.
Deadrat
news:hghbcc$16j4$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
Not in Missouri.
>> Is a slave a person?
>
> A slave was a person who had his freedom taken away from him for a
> time. In many countries that practiced slavery they had laws that
> enabled the slave to earn his way out of it.
> In the United States, many states passed self-serving laws to keep
> slaves in bondage for life.
Worse than that, the slaves' children became slaves at birth. But your
answer is incorrect. A slave in the antebellum United States was not a
legal person.
Josh
> fetus, that person can be charged with murder.
That fact does not define a 14th Amendment person.
Josh Rosenbluth
johnny@.
The Border Patrol returns a million illegal aliens a year to Mexico
without them ever seeing a judge.
>
> These are noble principles, even (as has been pointed out often), the
> founders failed to live up to them. Try to live up to their ideals, and
> not down to their failings.
Unlike you, our founding fathers had common sense.
>
> Try this hypothetical. The 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual
> punishment. Does this Constitutional protection apply to illegal
> immigrants, or may we legally draw and quarter them upon conviction for
> failure to obtain a visa?
Maybe the CIA and The White House could answer that question.
Deadrat
news:hghcqa$18i6$1...@adenine.netfront.net:
I could, but I'd rather say that the applicability of human rights is an
expanding concept.
> American women did not have the right to vote until recently
Sweetie, I'm sorry about the whole denial of suffrage thing, but it's
been 90 years.
<snip/>
Deadrat
news:4b2c3643$0$7835$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
A life is a fetus when a gestating entity sufficiently resembles its
adult form. In humans this occurs at the eighth week of pregnamcy.
Given its physiological functions, a fetus is clearly a life. A fetus
becomes a baby when it has passed through the birth canal. But these are
biological concepts. The tricky question is when a life becomes a legal
person.
> Why take a life, be it called a fetus or baby?
Have you checked misc.philosophy?
> How do you guarantee that you killed a fetus and not a baby?
By killing the fetus before it has passed through the birth canal.
> the only way to guarantee it is to give an exact time and date that
> the fetus becomes a baby.... can you do that?
Yes.
> I solve the question by saying just don't kill any until you have all
> the correct answers to all the questions.
I have no problem with that, as long as you don't impose your solution on
me.
Deadrat
news:hghda0$dhe$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Tbis is an interesting piece of propaganda. May I have the source for
it?
Of course, it's been some time since this was one connected country. Or
just about any of the other characteristics that the writer claims. Some
of which -- professing the same religion? -- were never true.
Deadrat
news:hghdk9$dhe$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
That's because most states define feticide as a type of crime called
murder. It doesn't make the fetus a legal person. No one can represent
the estate of such a fetus in a wrongful death suit, for example.
Deadrat
news:hghepl$p28$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Please cite a source for this. I'm sure that an illegal alien detained
by the Border Patrol may voluntarily agree to repatriation by waiving his
rights. But only then.
>> These are noble principles, even (as has been pointed out often), the
>> founders failed to live up to them. Try to live up to their ideals,
>> and not down to their failings.
>
> Unlike you, our founding fathers had common sense.
They had common sense and high ideals. Try emulating them instead of
disgracing them.
>> Try this hypothetical. The 8th Amendment bars cruel and unusual
>> punishment. Does this Constitutional protection apply to illegal
>> immigrants, or may we legally draw and quarter them upon conviction
>> for failure to obtain a visa?
>
> Maybe the CIA and The White House could answer that question.
In the first place, I'm not asking them. I'm asking you. In the second
place, the CIA and "The White House" (of the WPE) were torturing people
in extra-judicial procedures. That's illegal, but under the law, it's
not a punishment, which must be prescribed by law and imposed pursuant to
conviction for a criminal offense. The question (to you) is whether
Congress could pass a Constitutional law making drawing and quartering a
punishment for aliens who were convicted of coming here illegally,
whether a court could Constitutionally impose such a sentence, and
whether an official of the executive could Constitutionally carry out
such a sentence.
What say you?
Peter Franks
And who or what defined what a fetus is, or what a slave is?
Peter Franks
Maybe they aren't persons.
Who/what defines what a person is?
Deadrat
They are. Why wouldn't they be persons? Are they not individual human
beings?
> Who/what defines what a person is?
The laws and the courts.
Peter Franks
What about cesarean section?
What about male implantation?
What about in vitro gestation?
Why is there a distinction between person and legal person? Seems like
that is fodder for the murderer, not a just society.
Peter Franks
So, then if the laws and courts define them as not 'persons' they they
aren't persons?
So, historically slaves weren't persons, because that was the
interpretation of laws by the courts. There is no justification for
reparations (big surprise!), and all those civil rights activists
weren't -- they were law breakers and civil criminals.
Right?
Deadrat
All good questions.
> Why is there a distinction between person and legal person?
The answer (for purposes of the law) is that certain legal entities,
called "legal fictions" operate as individuals. These include
corporations and trusts, for example.
The tricky question (technically off topic for misc.legal) is why is
there a distinction between human life and an individual person.
> Seems like that is fodder for the murderer, not a just society.
I don't see how the definition of person makes murder more or less
likely, unless you want to expand the definition of murder. How about
including coitus interruptus?
Please define the term "just society."
Deadrat
For purposes of the law, correct.
> So, historically slaves weren't persons,
Correct.
> because that was the interpretation of laws by the courts.
Three in a row.
> There is no justification for reparations (big surprise!),
Well, in the US, reparations are reserved for wronged survivors or their
living heirs, so it's too late for slaves, the last of which is reported
to have been one Charles Smith who died in 1979 at the age of 137.
> and all those civil rights activists weren't
Weren't what? Civil rights activists? A civil rights activist in the
1960s was someone who demonstrated for a change in the laws governing
civil rights.
> -- they were law breakers
Some were. For instance, those who conducted sit-ins at segregated lunch
counters were guilty of trespassing. Most weren't, though. Where do you
get the idea that protesting the state of the law is a crime in this
country?
> and civil criminals.
There's no such thing. Unless you mean polite criminals.
> Right?
You must be trying to make some point that's gone over my head. Sorry if
I'm being obtuse.
johnny@.
Beam Me Up Scotty
If NOT then why did they add that clause to electing the President....
Why did they have states borders and a National border and why do you
need an army if the enemy can simply walk in and there is nothing you
can do about it?
With no "restrictions" how will you keep out the terrorists? Why was
there a question of laws on the high seas if there were no borders.
Poetic Justice
Since a C-section avoids the birth canal.... that is not quite all
encompassing. Those babies are also babies.
Some are borne before 9 months so using time and using the birth canal
aren't really reasonable ways to describe a baby.
Every day they make new breakthroughs to keep younger and younger babies
viable outside the womb, so that isn't a true test as day by day the
same test gives different results and as a scientific test it shows the
faulty logic.
They even do life saving surgery on babies in the womb.
Beam Me Up Scotty
It's certainly, no longer part of the woman's body.
So what ever you call it, it's not that woman's body.
Some call it Bio-Hazard Trash. Some a tragedy.
Deadrat
news:hgiml3$13i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Thanks. From the same Federalist No. 2:
<quote>
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and
it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so
proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the
strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous,
and alien sovereignties.
</quote>
It should be clear no matter how inspriring the prose, it is complete
nonsense. About a dozen years before this was written, this loving "band
of brethren" who rebelled against England comprised no more than a third
of the population. The Constitution endorsed by the Federalist Papers
wasn't unanimiously adopted to form the new country, and the document
failed to address the inconvenient problem of "jealous and alien
sovereignties" that exploded seventy some years later.
Deadrat
Historians aren't sure. It seems to have been given little thought at
the time. One theory is that the founders wanted to prevent the
installation of a foreign sovereign, a popular contemporary game of
musical chairs in Europe.
> Why did they have states borders
State borders were an artifact of colonial borders.
> and a National border
A national border is an artifact of the union of state borders.
> and why do you need an army if the enemy can simply walk in and there
> is nothing you can do about it?
Sometimes the enemy can simply walk in even if you have an army. See the
War of 1812. We're not currently threatened with an invasion by an
occupying force.
>
> With no "restrictions" how will you keep out the terrorists? Why was
> there a question of laws on the high seas if there were no borders.
I don't think the OP was advocating no such restrictions.
Deadrat
news:c17Xm.49829$cd7....@newsfe04.iad:
Good point.
> Some are borne before 9 months
I think you mean to say that they are borne for fewer than 9 months and
then born.
(Sorry.)
> so using time and using the birth canal
> aren't really reasonable ways to describe a baby.
Time isn't. Passage through a birth canal covers only about 70% of the
cases at hand. I didn't realize it was so low.
>
> Every day they make new breakthroughs to keep younger and younger
> babies viable outside the womb, so that isn't a true test as day by
> day the same test gives different results and as a scientific test it
> shows the faulty logic.
The scientific definition of fetus isn't faulty. The question left
unresolved is when a fetus becomes a person. And this isn't a scientific
question; it's a legal one. As far as the medical profession and the law
are concerned, once a fetus is outside the womb and no longer connected
to the mother, then it is required to use all reasonable medical
intervention to allow the former fetus to live independently. I think we
agree that during the period of medical intervention and after its
success, it is a baby and thus a person.
The leaves a shadowy area of medical judgment for all but what I'd guess
is a tiny percentage of births. You still have to account for the cases
in which the former fetus never becomes independent of life support or
when the medical intervention is "unreasonable."
I don't use the term "former fetus" to be provocative. I'm just trying
to avoid using the word "baby," which implies personhood, which is what
needs to be defined.
> They even do life saving surgery on babies in the womb.
By definition, there are no babies in wombs, no matter how much surgery
is performed on them. That's not to say that this definition solves the
moral or legal problems of protecting fetuses.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>> The Founding Fathers did not believe in any restriction on migration.
>
>
Well hell - lets just start making stuff up around here. HAHAHA
Mr.Sandman
Liberty and pursuit of happiness for Jefferson meant freedom to move to
anywhere you wanted to go to seek sustenance and happiness.
Deadrat
$ft1....@newsfe10.iad:
Speedy and his ilk are clueless about American history. Jefferson's
compatriots were the immigrants. They contemplated what they considered an
empty continent, and for the most part, had little competition from nominal
sovereigns like the French or Spanish. So there were few external grounds
for xenophobia.
Each colony had its own identity with parochial interests. There was
little nationalistic fervor. Indeed, even getting the Constitution
ratified was a battle. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is a
quote from 1775. From the other side, to be sure, but still apt.
Today's scoudrels defend an America of their own limited vision based on
their own limited knowledge.
Mr.Sandman
Very well said.
Viejo Vizcacha
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I've been told that the SC has said it isn't which seems preposterous
> to me. This link shows an actual photo of the first page of the
> Constitution.
>
> http://www.usconstitution.net/gifs/docs/cpage1.jpg
>
> As you can see the preamble starting at the top of the page with the
> words "We the People" blends right into Article 1 so how can anyone
> say the preamble is NOT part of the constitution.?
>
> The libs like to say the preamble is not in the C because that opening
> phrase "We the people of the United States" means that whenever the C
> uses words like people or persons, it means citizens and thus illegals
> have no constitutional rights.
"We the people" was meant to be "we the men", but not all men, really,
so it was more like "We the white men", but not all of them, really,
since it did not include white men who were indentured labour, or
white men wihtout property. So, "We the people" actually meant "We
the rich white men".
ViejoVizcacha