Posted on 12/19/2011 1:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
The 14th Amendment denies rights to US Citizens. Do you ALL hear that? The 14th Amendment denies rights to US Citizens. It replaces them with PRIVILEGES. And the then the MEDIA confuses the issue by misusing the terms "rights" and "privileges."
That's why the article says: The Supreme Court has previously ruled that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights in criminal cases, including a Sixth Amendment right to trial and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 8th Circuit declined to extend the right to bear arms to illegal immigrants
INSTEAD OF the TRUTH that:
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights privileges in criminal cases, including a Sixth Amendment right privilege to trial and Fourth Amendment protection (right privilege_ against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 8th Circuit declined to extend the right privilege to bear arms to illegal immigrants
And what is a "US Citizen"? Technically, a resident or employee of Washington DC or a US Territiry. BUT ALSO, it has been extended to the US Territories that are the "external limits" of States, Counties and Cities. In other wwords, a federal jurisidictional overlay that may or may not apply to YOU, at any particular time or place, but which federal courts have decreed may be SECRETLY PRESUMED to apply to, and enforced against, you at any time - and it's up to YOU to figure out that it's happening, and how to refute it (and let the world know if you figure out how, because the Feds won't admit any way, and won't allow it to be argued in federal court).
Why is all of this important? Because in relation to US CItizenship, the citizens of the respective 50 States are LEGAL ALIENS.
So you know what term is common in "legal aliens" and "illegal aliens" - right?
Then don't be too quick to jump for joy when you read the Feds have made something illegal to, or for, "aliens." Because these days, they more than likely mean YOU, not Jose'.
If the 2nd doesn’t apply to illegals, neither does any other part of the constitution.
Gun rights are the purview of the federal government.
The US Constitution is a document that requires the US government to protect our rights that were granted by God, not by congress, judges or any man...
However the enforcement of the US Constitution can only extend as far as the US control of its territory extends. For example, if I find myself in trouble in a US Embassy in China, the US personnel must respect my right to unreasonable searches & seizures.
Of course the US Constitution cannot enforce the god given right to bear arms or freedom to peaceably assemble in a foreign land on foreign citizens.
So when those foreigners come the the US, by hook or crook, are they under the US jurisdiction, laws and protections or do they remain under their home countries?
If they remain under their home countries laws & protections then I guess we couldn’t do anything about a community of Saudi green-card holders stoning to death one of their own in the middle of Kansas. Cause it’s legal in their home country right? This is of course ridiculous.
So when a Mexican is in the US, that Mexican must follow our laws and likewise their GOD-given rights will be recognized.
I believe that Felons REGAIN the right to own arms once they have served their time. That is how it USED to be in America, in the 19th and 18th centuries. If an adult is so dangerous that he can’t be trusted with a gun, then LOCK HIM UP! Or at least parachute him out over Central America!
Hopefully this is precursor to admitting that illegals are not “subject to jurisdiction thereof” in the in the 14th Amendment, which will strip their children of their stolen citizenship."
Good point.
You seem to be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that quote in the Declaration of Independence and it has nothing to do with the Constitution, the law, or illegal aliens flouting our laws.
Trust me, your integrity is intact without defending the illegals.
“Armed Illegal Immigrant = Invading Soldier.”
Good point. If the armed invading soldier is not wearing the military uniform of his country he should be executed.
No, I know that the quote is from the Declaration, but the Declaration of Independence is the soul, where the Constitution is the word.
I don't see how the Constitution is possible without the Declaration of Independence. It's the foundation of belief upon which the Constitution rests, in my opinion.
“One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that “millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government.”
And your problem with that is....?
If illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they cannot be punished for crimes they commit here (like foreign diplomats, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and have diplomatic immunity for crimes they commit here).
I agree, but does that foreigner (illegal though he may be) not have the same God-given inalienable rights as all men, as expressed in our Declaration of Independence (whether protected by man's law or not)?
I fully agree that all illegal immigrants are breaking our laws by their very presence on our soil, and that every one of them should be returned to their country of origin, but this seems to be a philosophical question.
Believe me, I'd much prefer that this man return to his own country and fight alongside his countrymen to implement their own Bill of Rights equal to our own.
He's a lawbreaker, and shouldn't expect (or receive) any protections under our laws.
The "all men" in that sentence... to whom do you think it refers?
The Hitman Cometh: America to be 'War Zone'
A Humanitarian Catastrophe at Ashraf Spells Political Catastrophe for the White House
Back to Bachmann Check the link in comment# 7, a Bloomberg.com story about Newt and Freddie Mac. I'm still partial to Bachmann, although it's Anybody But Obama, ABO! If I have to hold my nose, and vote for Romney over Obama, then so be it. ABO!
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
that judge should immediatly resign as he/she/it is not advocating law but relativist agenda.
******************
One judge dissented, finding that the 5th Circuit decision in that case meant that "millions of similarly situated residents of the United States are non-persons who have no rights to be free from unjustified searches of their homes and bodies and other abuses, nor to peaceably assemble or petition the government."
I'll have to read that case and see who that judge is. The dissent almost reads more like a deliberate effort to "connect the dots" for the rest of the federal judiciary than a true objection to the majority opinion.
Yes and no. IMHO, what it would mean it they don’t necessarily rate a trial... Just like the troops of an invading army.
is this a severability clause situation? Does it appear that the Constitution has no severability clause?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.