Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
The “persons” being spoken of are persons of the US and not of the planetArticle [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)You do not illegally walk over from Mexico and received constitutional rights upon stepping onto US soil
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You have posted some of your own what? I literally have no idea what you’re talking about in your entire post.I have posted some of my own.
The “persons” being spoken of are persons of the US and not of the planet
You have posted some of your own what? I literally have no idea what you’re talking about in your entire post.
It’s ludicrous to think that in the late 1700’s the framers were thinking of anything other that persons of the USA-citizens
It’s ludicrous to believe they had much of any awareness of , thus sought to protect, people from Central America
Actually - it's not. I don't agree to that at all. So much for your lie that it is "universally agreed upon". Oops. By the way, I highlighted the fact that you contradict yourself in the same breath.Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. Lying about it on the internet will not change that.Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.
They were creating citizens of and for this country. They also knew that more people would be coming. Immigrants. Legal immigrants who did what was necessary to enter the country in a lawful manner. They wished to be citizens of this great land.It’s ludicrous to think that in the late 1700’s the framers were thinking of anything other that persons of the USA-citizens
It’s ludicrous to believe they had much of any awareness of , thus sought to protect, people from Central America
Ludicrous? You people are simply high on Quaaludes. The framers were not counting a census of "documented citizens" like David's disastrous numbering of the people in the Bible. They did not envision an Anglo-Saxon-only paradise with closed walls like some kind of Valhalla.
When the Central Americans or others came in peace, they were welcome. When they come in war, we have to defend ourselves against them without the obstructionism and racism.
I always enjoy being vindicated...Again you are wrong.It applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only.
It is not an international document and every person with an IQ above 40 knows it.Held: Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional.
I always enjoy being vindicated...Constitutional rights apply to everyone within the US jurisdiction. The preamble says “ . . . all men are created equal”. Not “all citizens”.
It is not an international document and every person with an IQ above 40 knows it. This is a prime example of why Canadians just shouldn't weigh in on American politics. They are simply clueless.First, it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution
First, it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution
Held: Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional.
Two bedrock legal principles lead to this conclusion. As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution
Pretty cut and dry but for those leftists who are going to look for loopholes here by citing nonsense like "but....but....but...it mentions outside of U.S. territory", here is a few more highlights from this recent decision to close the case on this favorite left-wing lie:Foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution
Keyword: may. Note that it does not say they will or they have a right. They say they MAY. As in, if we so choose. But it doesn't stop there. Here is more:As the Court has recognized, foreign citizens in the United States may enjoy certain constitutional rights—to take just one example, the right to due process in a criminal trial
Once again, that keyword may pops up! Once again, as in if we so choose. Could not be more cut & dry. Thanks for playing leftists. But words have meaning, and although we recognize your utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution because it limits your deep desire for power over others, you lose!To be sure, Congress may seek to enact laws that afford foreign citizens abroad statutory rights or causes of action against misconduct by U.S. Government officials
It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
agreed? by whom? link"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.
But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.
Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.
Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.
What supreme body interprets the Constitution?
amp.theatlantic.com
It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
So, according to the 2nd Amendment - you have the right to own any weapon you choose? Right? How many fully automatic weapons do you own? Sawed-off shotguns? Hand grenades? Bazookas?
Time to end this before more left-winger attempt to argue their false narrative further. For the last time right here and now:
The U.S. Constitution is not an international document and as such, non-US citizens do not have constitutional rights. If they did, they could not be prevented from voting. And the law absolutely prevents any non-US citizen from voting.
"However, green card holders cannot do everything that U.S. citizens can. They cannot vote in U.S. elections."
Difference Between U.S. Green Card and U.S. Citizenship
"every person should have"It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.
A widely-held view among the great men who wrote our Constitution—with which I agree—is that it does not create or grant any rights at all, but only recognizes rights to which all human beings are entitled, and which all legitimate governments are obligated to uphold.
Obviously, the Constitution only has legal authority within the jurisdiction of the United States and of the states which comprise it; and it does create a troubling dilemma as to how our government should treat sovereign foreign nations which deny their people the rights that our nation is founded on the idea that .
Just a few highlights from the recent Supreme Court ruling on George Soros' claim that his "Open Society" is entitled to constitutional rights:
First, it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. ConstitutionHeld: Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional.Two bedrock legal principles lead to this conclusion. As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. ConstitutionPretty cut and dry but for those leftists who are going to look for loopholes here by citing nonsense like "but....but....but...it mentions outside of U.S. territory", here is a few more highlights from this recent decision to close the case on this favorite left-wing lie:Foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution
Keyword: may. Note that it does not say they will or they have a right. They say they MAY. As in, if we so choose. But it doesn't stop there. Here is more:As the Court has recognized, foreign citizens in the United States may enjoy certain constitutional rights—to take just one example, the right to due process in a criminal trial
Once again, that keyword may pops up! Once again, as in if we so choose. Could not be more cut & dry. Thanks for playing leftists. But words have meaning, and although we recognize your utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution because it limits your deep desire for power over others, you lose!To be sure, Congress may seek to enact laws that afford foreign citizens abroad statutory rights or causes of action against misconduct by U.S. Government officials
