Re: What Immigration Problem?

Apparently, Michael, YOU miss the point the rulings I referred to are well over 100 years old and have never been questioned... quite the opposite they have actually been upheld by the populaces they effect.... by popular vote.....several times. 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.

"Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate."

The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.
The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.
The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.

Regard$,
--MJ

I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran

At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Michael,
 
One of my points, and you obviously missed it.
 
Whether you like it,  or you don't like it,  the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict.  It becomes law.  The law of our Land.  We are a Nation of Laws.  You can disagree,  you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with,  to be legislated,  but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.
 
Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law)  doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful.   "It Is,  What It Is".
 


 
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.

The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.  It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

AIS9C2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.

As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.

Regard$,

--MJ

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)

At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Good Morning Michael!

 

A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.

 

First,  it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails,  message boards, or Groups like Political Forum.  I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!)  that I intended.  (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)

 

Second,  I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum,  have one or two things in common:  (1)  We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs;  (2)  We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers.  It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s),  but in general, we are looking to be either (A)  affirmed in our beliefs,  or (B)  proven incorrect.

 

 

Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision,  Boumediene v. Bush,  553 U.S. 723 (2008);  that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus;  especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens.  A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

 

Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens";  personally,  I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years.  Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional,  and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances. 

 

KeithInTampa

 

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

 

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity"  refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

 

I agree with you, that the term, "The People"  sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference  "[t]he People"  (or are non-specific)  apply to say,  folks in China, or Iran? 

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.

OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

 

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally?  Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.

In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.

Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

 

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

 

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions,  are victims of our "interventionist"  policies,  and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

Regard$,

--MJ

"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

 

=======

 

No, it doesn't.  That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking. 

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...

,,, the right of the people to keep and ...

... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...

The right of the people to be secure ...

No person shall be held to answer for a ...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,

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

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"

X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** House Keeping Supervisor

·        House Keeping Supervisor is required (on urgent basis) for a fastest growing Yarn industry located in North Karachi Ind. Area, Karachi, applicant at least Graduate and have good experience in House Keeping Issues on production floor, independently handle all house keeping matters.

 

For above position mail your cv on bettercareer2009@gmail.com , only relevant CV will be entertained.

Does Integrity Matter?

Does Integrity Matter?
by Butler Shaffer

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. -- Albert Einstein

I become exasperated reading or listening to chuckleheaded people who are unable – or unwilling – to distinguish the peaceful and voluntary nature of a free market, from the violent and coercive character of the corporate-state system that long ago took over our economic lives. Murray Rothbard's words come to mind, wherein he observed that it was no great wrong to not understand economics, but that one ignorant of the subject ought not be offering advice on such matters. I would no more go to a lawyer, or an orthodontist, or Lew Rockwell, to have brain surgery performed on me, than would I take seriously the prescriptions offered by economic ignoramuses on how to "grow" an economy (an idea as absurd as that of misguided, controlling parents who believe it is their role to "grow" their children).

Many of the signs and comments of participants in the varied "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations reflect this confusion between the impersonal nature of markets and the politically-enforced interests of marketplace participants. "End corporate greed" is a common sentiment expressed, no doubt, by persons who embrace the "power greed" that drives those who want the state to enforce their visions. It is such simplistic thinking that insists on labeling the pursuit of individual self-interest as "greed," while political power ambitions get defined as "public service." The slothful-minded then find it easy to condemn all marketplace pursuit of self-interest as "anti-social" (at best) or downright "criminal" at worst, and to regard the politically-driven as the embodiment of "public spiritedness." "Businessmen" are then collectivized as persons lacking in any principled integrity who will do anything to increase profits to their firms.

As a response to such muddled thinking, I would like to offer two examples: the first of literary derivation, the second from real-life. Each involves manufacturers of airplane parts who have contracted with the federal government to help produce military aircraft. For purposes of this illustration, I will overlook the difficulties associated with government-contracting itself. My focus will be upon how each of these men responded to defects in either the manufacture or design of their products; imperfections each understood to be a danger to pilots flying the planes involved.

The first man is Joe Keller, a fictional character brought to life by Arthur Miller in his 1947 play – and later a film – All My Sons. Joe and his partner, Steve Deever, are in the business of manufacturing, among other items, airplane cylinders during World War II. Prior to the parts being shipped, both Joe and Steve become aware of the defective nature of these cylinders, but operating under the pressures of time and threat of being in default in their contract with the government, they proceed with the shipment. Later, twenty-one pilots die because of such defective parts, but Joe manages to shift the blame to Steve who, as a consequence, is convicted and sent to prison.

Most of the play centers on Joe's lack of moral character, and the consequences thereof not only to himself, but to his and Steve's families. Toward the end, it becomes known that Joe's son – an Army pilot who had long been listed as "missing in action" – had learned of Joe's wrongdoing, and committed suicide by crashing his plane. When Joe is told of this, he goes to his room and shoots himself.

By contrast, consider the example of Spencer Heath, a man who was an engineer, inventor, attorney, manufacturer, and a highly-respected social philosopher. During World War I, Heath was in the business of manufacturing airplane propellers. Like Joe Keller, Heath had a contract with the federal government to produce and deliver a given number and style of propellers that had been designed by the government. Prior to shipping them, Heath did some testing that confirmed the defective nature of the design of the propellers. He contacted the War Department about this, informing them that the propellers would likely fall apart in flight, endangering the pilots, and that he refused to ship them. Heath faced more than a threat of a breach of contract action: he was told, by the War Department, "Mr. Heath, this is wartime. You make these propellers, or we'll shoot you!"

I never met Spencer Heath, but from what I know of him it is evident that he was a very moral and philosophically principled person. He patented his inventions only as a defensive measure (i.e., to keep others from taking his ideas, patenting them, and thus preventing Heath from using his own works). When asked if his thinking allowed his competitors to follow his work, Heath replied: "Yes, I do find that they follow me – and that's what keeps them behind, where they belong!"

How, then, would such a focused man of integrity respond to the government's threat to have him shot if he failed to deliver the defective propellers? Unlike Joe Keller, how could Spencer Heath avoid the government's threats without, at the same time, participating in what his judgment told him would lead to the deaths of other men? I suspect that this was not a moral dilemma for Heath – I doubt that he had any conflict as to the propriety of his actions – but did require the search for a pragmatic solution that would keep both him and some unknown pilots alive.

Late one night, and with the help of one of his employees, Spencer went to the loading dock where the crates of propellers awaited shipment the next day. With a crowbar, these men opened each crate and on each propeller stamped the message: "Made under protest. Condemned by manufacturer." Heath's grandson, Spencer MacCallum, told me he later learned that the propellers had been sent to a warehouse in Texas, and were never put into use. His grandson also informed me that he owns the rubber stamp that Heath had made with which to warn others of the defective nature of the propellers.

My life experiences – including my years as a lawyer – have brought to my attention the behavior of many business people who, like Spencer Heath, lived the integrated life (i.e., having their moral principles reflected in the practical necessities of their work). Interestingly, most of the men and women who exhibited such integrity were also the owners of the firms for which they made decisions. It is no coincidence, I think, that in his important book Citadel, Market and Altar, Spencer Heath gave birth to the theory of communities operating on property-based principles, a work that his grandson has continued in his own book, The Art of Community.

It is such distinctions as are offered by the Kellers and the Heaths of our world that ought to be kept in mind by us all, particularly when we are trying to unravel the causes of the economic crises in which we find ourselves. When business people find themselves inconvenienced by the unintended consequences of their own incompetence, many will turn to lobbyists and politicians to help them secure a more favorable spot at the government trough. On a more encouraging note, there will often be a Spencer Heath who will insist on putting his (literal) stamp on his work to express his refusal to bring harm to others.

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer243.html

Re: What Immigration Problem?

Apparently YOU missed the reality to which I identified.
"Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate."

The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them Constitutional.
The Court *may* interpret/invent/decree meanings, but that does not make them legal.
The Government's costumed enforcers may enforce those interpretations/inventions/decrees, but that does not make them Constitutional.

Regard$,
--MJ

I was about to say that I'd hate to live in a country where the law could mean whatever its rulers said it meant, when it occurred to me that I already do. -- Joseph Sobran



At 02:01 PM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Michael,
 
One of my points, and you obviously missed it.
 
Whether you like it,  or you don't like it,  the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict.  It becomes law.  The law of our Land.  We are a Nation of Laws.  You can disagree,  you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with,  to be legislated,  but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.
 
Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law)  doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful.   "It Is,  What It Is".
 


 
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.

The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.  It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

AIS9C2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.

As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.

Regard$,

--MJ

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)

At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Good Morning Michael!

 

A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.

 

First,  it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails,  message boards, or Groups like Political Forum.  I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!)  that I intended.  (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)

 

Second,  I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum,  have one or two things in common:  (1)  We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs;  (2)  We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers.  It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s),  but in general, we are looking to be either (A)  affirmed in our beliefs,  or (B)  proven incorrect.

 

 

Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision,  Boumediene v. Bush,  553 U.S. 723 (2008);  that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus;  especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens.  A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

 

Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens";  personally,  I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years.  Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional,  and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances. 

 

KeithInTampa

 

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

 

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity"  refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

 

I agree with you, that the term, "The People"  sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference  "[t]he People"  (or are non-specific)  apply to say,  folks in China, or Iran? 

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.

OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

 

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally?  Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.

In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.

Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

 

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

 

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions,  are victims of our "interventionist"  policies,  and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

Regard$,

--MJ

"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

 

=======

 

No, it doesn't.  That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking. 

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...

,,, the right of the people to keep and ...

... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...

The right of the people to be secure ...

No person shall be held to answer for a ...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,

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

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"

X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: What Immigration Problem?

Michael,

 

One of my points, and you obviously missed it.

 

Whether you like it,  or you don't like it,  the Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and becomes edict.  It becomes law.  The law of our Land.  We are a Nation of Laws.  You can disagree,  you can dispute the law, and you can even petition your Congressman or Senator to mandate whatever stricture it is that you disagree with,  to be legislated,  but it is THE LAW, and the interpretation of the Constitution, BY LAW.

 

Just because you disagree with the law, (or I disagree with the law)  doesn't make it any less unenforceable, or more importantly, less lawful.   "It Is,  What It Is".

 

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Firstly, the Court is NOT the Constitution. A court edict (ruling) is not an Amendment. That the Court usurped power nowhere provided it in 1803 does not make that usurpation somehow Constitutional nor legitimate.

The US Government is acting CONTRARY to the Constitution in regards to Guantanamo. The United States Government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.  It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

AIS9C2

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

There, of course, is NO 'Rebellion' NOR is/has there been an 'Invasion'.

As such 'suspending' (or ignoring) Habeas Corpus in this instance is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Amendments V and VI are applicable.

Regard$,
--MJ

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive. -- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)

At 10:39 AM 11/12/2011, you wrote:

Good Morning Michael!
 
A couple of thoughts first, before I get to the crux of what I wanted to convey.
 
First,  it is very hard to express emotion over a medium such as e-mails,  message boards, or Groups like Political Forum.  I am guilty of writing things here, sometimes in an attempt to be humorous, and come back later to see that my post sounded arrogant, or nonsensical instead of conveying the humor (or the "enlightenment"!!)  that I intended.  (Once again, another probably failed attempt at humor!)
 
Second,  I think that it is probably an apt description, that those of us who are regular, active participants here in Political Forum,  have one or two things in common:  (1)  We are all probably pretty passionate in our beliefs; and we want to share those beliefs with others, somehow thinking that maybe we can convince others of our beliefs;  (2)  We are all pretty much open minded, and are all still looking for answers.  It might take a two by four hitting us over the head to change our perspective(s),  but in general, we are looking to be either (A)  affirmed in our beliefs,  or (B)  proven incorrect.
 
 
Finally, I share with you a fairly recent Supremes Decision,  Boumediene v. Bush,  553 U.S. 723 (2008);  that dealt with Guantanamo detainees and the Bush Administration's suspension of the right to Habeas Corpus;  especially to those prisoners who were not American citizens.  A long read but very informative and explanatory on a number of fronts, especially as to how our Constitution has been interpreted over the years as it applies to jurisdiction and applicability to citizens and non-citizens alike. 
 
Going back to the initial statement by Sheldon Richmond, that, "the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens";  personally,  I think that Richmon's comment is taken out of context and mis-states what the Supreme Court has said over the course of one hundred fifty years.  Having said that, the Constitution is jurisdictional,  and it does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike in certain aspects and circumstances. 
 
KeithInTampa
 


 
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:15 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may:

 

Who do you think the term, "ourselves and our posterity"  refer to?

Really? One of the GOALS sought by instituting and following the Constitution somehow means something else? Really?

 

I agree with you, that the term, "The People"  sounds all encompassing....So, would the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Amendments, all of which reference  "[t]he People"  (or are non-specific)  apply to say,  folks in China, or Iran? 

AGAIN, People refers to ANYONE the Government created by the Constitution is 'interacting' within its jurisdiction.

OBVIOUSLY the US Government has no power, authority nor jurisdiction in the sovereign Nations of China or Iran. If, however, someone from China were in the US, THEY would be part of the People who could not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

 

Would the Twelfth Amendment apply to individuals who are immigrants, but have arrived here in the United States legally?  Would it apply to those individuals who are illegal immigrants?

Some of Amendment 12 has been modified/eliminated by subsequent Amendment.

In AIIS1C2, the State Legislatures are provided the power to choose Electors in whatever manner they desire. If they seek to choose immigrants (with or without permission), that is their prerogative.

Exactly WHICH portion/reference are you attempting to identify?

 

Why is it that citizens or "residents" of Puerto Rico, although by law being United States citizens, are not as a constitutional matter protected by the full Bill of Rights?

If Peurto Rico is a US Territory -- which it is -- then the Constitution applies. That it might NOT is part and parcel to the myriad of unconstitutional efforts perpetrated with impunity.

 

I think we both agree that it is fundamental that the Constitution defines and limits our federal government. Yet does the Constitution constrain the exercise of ourfederal government's power abroad? Do United States Constitutional Protections apply to Afghanis, who by yours and probably better said PlainOl's definitions,  are victims of our "interventionist"  policies,  and by example, what I mean to say, is does the Constitution constrain our federal government and our occupational forces in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, of course, is a sovereign nation. The US Government has no (legitimate) jurisdiction, power or authority in Afghanistan. In fact, as the Constitution is concerned the war and our occupation is outside the Constitution.

Regard$,

--MJ

"Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states." -- Joe Wolverton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights ofpersons, not just those of American citizens."

 

=======

 

No, it doesn't.  That is the major flaw with many far left individuals' thinking. 

ROTFLMAO!

The Constitution protects People from Government -- their rights as well.

Never see:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who ...

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the ...

,,, the right of the people to keep and ...

... without the consent of the Owner, nor in ...

The right of the people to be secure ...

No person shall be held to answer for a ...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ,,,

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

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who do you imagine these PEOPLE might be? Before you absurdly make a fool of yourself with 'citizen' ,,, why did they not use THAT term in those instances when they did in others?

Regard$,

--MJ

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices paid by others" -- Thomas Sowell.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Boumediene.v.Bush.553.US.723.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_guws441t0

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.