Next Target Iran.

[glockmail]

14th Amendment:

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

Please note that there are certain rights that flow to CITIZENS, and that certain other rights flow to PERSONS.

Like it or not, foreign terrorists who are captured on the battlefiled and then fall under the jurisdiction of the United States are PERSONS is every sense of the word.

Like it or not, the 14th does not require the Federal Government to grant any person due process. Nice try through.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Like it or not, the 14th does not require the Federal Government to grant any person due process. Nice try through.

However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.

 

[maineman]

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

Substantive Due Process is afforded to "persons".... and not restricted to "citizens"

 

[glockmail]

However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.

So?

 

[glockmail]

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause...

Not the first time the Supremes have erred.

 

[maineman]

Not the first time the Supremes have erred.

by definition, it is the law of the land, however. And did I miss your legal credentials?

 

[Bullypulpit]

It would appear that glockmail has run out of intellectual ammunition, but that is typical of the right wing, lunatic fringe of the GOP.

 

[glockmail]

by definition, it is the law of the land, however. And did I miss your legal credentials?

Apparently you did. It's called common sense.

 

[glockmail]

It would appear that glockmail has run out of intellectual ammunition, but that is typical of the right wing, lunatic fringe of the GOP.

Go with that.

This from a guy who has ignored several dozen direct questions from me.

 

[Annie]

However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.

Just on the habeas part:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/circuit_court_a_1.html

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Circuit Court orders end to detainee cases

Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:05 AM

The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday ruled that Congress had taken away the federal courts' authority to hear habeas challenges to the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court also ruled that this did not amount to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court was divided 2-1 on the constitutional issue in its 59-page decision (which can now be found here)...

 

[maineman]

Apparently you did. It's called common sense.

common sense beats nine distinguished careers in jurisprudence any day, eh clock?

what is the color of the fucking sky in YOUR world?

 

[glockmail]

common [sic] sense beats nine distinguished careers in jurisprudence any day, eh clock [sic]?

what [sic] is the color of the f[---]ing sky in YOUR world?

More delicious irony:

1. Yes. From your own link;

Critics of Substantive Due Process claim that it is not the laws it strikes down, but rather the theory itself which is "unconstitutional." They claim that it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court since they Court can’t use Judicial Review to strike down a state law unless the law is really contrary to the Constitution. Critics claim that "Substantive Due Process" is an oxymoron and that there is no way a reasonable person with a sixth grade grasp of grammar could read the "Due Process" Clause to assure anything but procedural rights. They say that when the Court uses judicial review to enforce these pseudo-Constitutional rights they are stealing the legitimate law-making power from the state legislatures.

2. Are claiming that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous? 'What is the color of the sky in YOUR world?'

 

[maineman]

More delicious irony:

1. Yes. From your own link;

2. Are claiming that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous? 'What is the color of the sky in YOUR world?'

of course not...where would you get that idea? The supremes have established substantive due process....and it is applicable to persons, not just citizens.... and until five of the nine decide that such an interpretation is NOT constitutional, by definition...it IS. And I would suggest that the deliberations of nine learned jurists has more bearing than the modicum of common sense held by a moron like you with NO legal training.

 

[glockmail]

of course not...where would you get that idea? The supremes have established substantive due process....and it is applicable to persons, not just citizens.... and until five of the nine decide that such an interpretation is NOT constitutional, by definition...it IS. And I would suggest that the deliberations of nine learned jurists has more bearing than the modicum of common sense held by a moron like you with NO legal training.

As I said earlier, it's not the first time the SCOTUS erred.

 

[maineman]

As I said earlier, it's not the first time the SCOTUS erred.

and I said...I find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous for you to first state that the constitution does NOT provide any protections for non-citizens, and then when shown the error of your statement, claim that the supreme court doesn't know what they are talking about.

can't you ever admit when you screw up?

 

[glockmail]

and I said...I find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous for you to first state that the constitution does NOT provide any protections for non-citizens, and then when shown the error of your statement, claim that the supreme court doesn't know what they are talking about.

can't you ever admit when you screw up?

Post 72. Answer, please.

 

[maineman]

Post 72. Answer, please.

72 answered in 73.

 

[glockmail]

72 answered in 73.

Not quite: "...it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court ..."

I don't expect you to understand that.

 

[maineman]

Not quite: "...it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court ..."

I don't expect you to understand that.

I understand that substantive due process has some critics.... and I understand you are one of them.

it must suck to you, then.... cuz substantive due process is the law of the land.

 

[glockmail]

I understand that substantive due process has some critics.... and I understand you are one of them.

it must suck to you, then.... cuz substantive due process is the law of the land.

Actually it's great being me: relatively young, handsome, well educated, with a beautiful, young, slender wife, athletic, smart and respectful children, gainfully self-employed, two homes in restricted communities, longevity in my bloodline, and a large, self-made portfolio. Not to mention an expert skier….