The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[evenflow1969]

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.

Yeah, why would you guys just making it up, and having judges make it up... mean that somehow the document now means whatever you want?

No. Sorry.

The constitution has a specific meaning, and it can't just be "judicial precdented" away. Nor can you just 're-interpret" it to mean something it doesn't.

I don't care about your dumb judges, nor do I care about your interpretations. If you get to make it up, then so do I. 'relative truth' is a double edged blade. You start swinging that around, and you'll cut off your own head.

If everything is up to interpretation, then why do you claim Trump doesn't believe things based on facts? After all... he's just interpreting them differently than you. So shut up about it.

Everything that you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

A plain-text reading of it is very clear - the majority of the bill of rights applies to everyone within the borders of the United States, not just to citizens.

This is universally agreed upon by anyone who understands what they're talking about.

I agree, but you forgot ti include "and territories". Puerto Rico, Samoa, and Guam are not "within our borders".

I did omitt those you are absolutly correct. Patriot just pisses me off!! I got in a hury to show him what an idiot he is!!!

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

None. The U.S. Constitution authorizes no "body" to "interpret" it. Sorry, not sorry.

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?

Citizens have a right to own automatic weapons, (in the 1930 regulations on machine guns were enacted in response to the heyday of mob violence). A private citizen can still legally own one, but it has to be registered and an extremely steep ownership tax has to be paid every year. The first Thompson submachine in mint working condition is still in private ownership.

As far as bazookas (not even made anymore) and handgrenades, those are explosives and a completely different story.

Leave to Chief Iwanna poca-her-hontas to go to extremes about something they know nothing about.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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

Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, I'm sure you know the answer to this question.

What's a significant difference between these two clauses?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by 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.

Damned, Doc, even a Damned old Dumb Diesel Driver like me knows the answer to that one! ROFLMAO

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

That DELUSIONAL judge Watson in Hawaii should be IMPEACHED immediately!! The establishment clause doesn't apply to 7+ BILLION people on earth! It only applies to U.S. citizens so Trump is 100% right with his travel ban!! See below for the statute Trump used:

View attachment 117573

Duh, but not based on religion.

What part of "Any Alien or Any Class of Alien" did you not understand, and what part of the Constitution that states Any person you within our boundries" did you not understand?

I hate to stress your little mind, but non-citizen on foreign soil are NOT afforded Constitutional rights, hence Constitutional religious protections DO NOT APPLY!

Cheeeee-rist, dood! Let me send you a dollar so you can buy yourself a clue! Wait, I know I've got A Round Tuit here somewhere. Where did I put that thing? *scratching head*

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

I don't even fully believe that you have the ability to read, let alone understand what you're reading.

Typical response from someone getting their ass handed to them with facts.

There is either willful or ignorant conflation between terms of legal and illegal "immigrant", and even between being citizen and immigrant. I wrote about this before elsewhere, but it doesn't hurt to say it again.

Just as using term "illegal immigrant" is misleading, since someone being illegally here is not an immigrant, just an illegal, leftists now want to push the narrative that the foreigners outside of the US somehow have our constitutional rights, and since everything that leftists are trying to push for is based on a lie or on a false premise, this is too, just another leftist lie.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants, they are illegals who should not be in this country at the first place.
Foreigners are not citizens and they do not have our constitutional rights. Only citizens have constitutional rights. That doesn't mean that non-citizens don't have any rights at all.

We all by the virtue of being human have natural rights, but our civil or citizen rights are result of our social compact that we as citizens agree upon mutually. Immigrants who respect and live by our rules for some time, can apply for our citizenship and therefore become part of our social compact once the citizenship is granted, and receive the rights of US constitution that only to the US citizens have. There is no such thing of alien or foreigner having our constitutional rights. There is no such thing that anyone have right to come to, or right to being allowed to come to our country.

Those who we did not let in, or those who jumped the fence, or those who overstayed their visas do not belong to our exclusive club of US citizens. If what lefties are saying is true, and isn't, why do we have passports, visas, green cards...

Foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution - according to SCOTUS.

Gitmo is leased from Cuba by the U.S. Government, so by extension, I believe, it is a territory. Just like overseas military bases where Constitutional Rights apply. At least U.S civilians working there have them. I seem to remember, from 40+ years ago anyway, that military personnel civil rights are cover by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

I might be mistaken, but that is my understanding.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

I believe the Constitution applies to everyone. Within the Constitution it states: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

I'm no lawyer but I would think that language applies whether you're from Ohio, Arizona, Mexico or Syria,

You are correct about Ohio and Arizona, but Mexico and Syria would not unless such crimes were committed with the boundaries of the U.S.

If they fled back to their home countries and caught there, they could be extradited back to the U.S. under treaty unless there was no extradition treaty (See Brazil). In such cases, the State Department would petition the home country requesting the return of the person alleged to have committed the crime for trial. There would be no recourse if said country refused extradition.

 

[Billo_Really]

Snowflake...you just got exposed and you know it. You said (and I quote) "aside from the Supremacy Clause" and then you mentioned Article VI which affirms the Supremacy Clause.

Nobody was arguing that federal law trumps state and local law and yet you want to pretend like someone was and pretend like you brought something to our attention and that we didn't already know. The best part was - we weren't even talking about treatises. You literally cannot figure out which way is up right now.

You're cherry-picking.

 

[oreo]

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.

Under the Establishment clause they do. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion. That's why Trump's cough cough travel ban executive order 1 and 2 have flopped.

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't even fully believe that you have the ability to read, let alone understand what you're reading.

Typical response from someone getting their ass handed to them with facts.

There is either willful or ignorant conflation between terms of legal and illegal "immigrant", and even between being citizen and immigrant. I wrote about this before elsewhere, but it doesn't hurt to say it again.

Just as using term "illegal immigrant" is misleading, since someone being illegally here is not an immigrant, just an illegal, leftists now want to push the narrative that the foreigners outside of the US somehow have our constitutional rights, and since everything that leftists are trying to push for is based on a lie or on a false premise, this is too, just another leftist lie.

Illegal aliens are not immigrants, they are illegals who should not be in this country at the first place.
Foreigners are not citizens and they do not have our constitutional rights. Only citizens have constitutional rights. That doesn't mean that non-citizens don't have any rights at all.

We all by the virtue of being human have natural rights, but our civil or citizen rights are result of our social compact that we as citizens agree upon mutually. Immigrants who respect and live by our rules for some time, can apply for our citizenship and therefore become part of our social compact once the citizenship is granted, and receive the rights of US constitution that only to the US citizens have. There is no such thing of alien or foreigner having our constitutional rights. There is no such thing that anyone have right to come to, or right to being allowed to come to our country.

Those who we did not let in, or those who jumped the fence, or those who overstayed their visas do not belong to our exclusive club of US citizens. If what lefties are saying is true, and isn't, why do we have passports, visas, green cards...

Foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution - according to SCOTUS.

Gitmo is leased from Cuba by the U.S. Government, so by extension, I believe, it is a territory. Just like overseas military bases where Constitutional Rights apply. At least U.S civilians working there have them. I seem to remember, from 40+ years ago anyway, that military personnel civil rights are cover by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

I might be mistaken, but that is my understanding.

If you Constitutional laymen would take the time to actually read every word in the Constitutional excerpt below, you might , for the first time in your lives, really understand what is being posited:



...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.

"Any person" means all people including tourists, refugees, and even illegals and, ah yes, US citizens.

Then comes this: "within its jurisdiction." Any place where US courts have jurisdiction including Puerto Rico, Guam or other US possessions is covered by that phrase.

Finally: "equal protections of the laws." This is important because it puts US citizens on notice that they can be sued by non citizens for abuses incurred within US jurisdiction. Equal protection of the law does NOT extend voting rights.

Military Bases on foreign soil and Guantanamo: These military enclaves are governed by the base commander within the purview of the Uniform code of Military Justice. Foreign nationals or US civilians working within that jurisdiction are not subject to the UCMJ and so, if found to be engaged in illegal or criminal activity, must be turned over the the local police.
Guantanamo:
The 4 Geneva Conventions are purported to govern here but the legal status of the prisoners has stirred controversy internationally as well as within our three brances of government..to say the least. Here is an encapsulation of the dilemma :
Guantanamo: the Legal Mess Behind the Ethical Mess | BU Today | Boston University

Spoiler: THE DILEMMA

How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?

Spoiler: THE DILEMMA

There’s no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”

 

[P@triot]

You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

Really? The guy who twice proclaimed that the Justice Department was part of the Judicial branch is going to attempt to tell me about the U.S. Constitution?

You can ban foreigners from entering this country for any reason at all - including for no reason. Foreigners have no right of access to the United States. None.

And not for nothing - but President Trump's Executive Order didn't ban anyone based on religion (which would literally be impossible). The ban was based on region.

 

[P@triot]

If you Constitutional laymen would take the time to actually read every word in the Constitutional excerpt below, you might , for the first time in your lives, really understand what is being posited:

...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.

"Any person" means all people including tourists, refugees, and even illegals and, ah yes, US citizens.

"Any person" means U.S. citizen, you nitwit. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. Most 5 year olds can figure this out. Why can't you?

 

[P@triot]

Foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the U.S. Constitution - according to SCOTUS.

Really? How's that working out for them?

 

[P@triot]

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.

Here we go again Patriot(should be idiot) strait out of the constitution

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
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.

Please note the words No person at the beginig. Please note any person underlined and in bold print. This does not say Citizen.

It doesn't have to, you nitwit. The U.S. Constitution was written for the United States and U.S. citizens. It is not an international document. It does not govern Canada nor the people of Canada. It does not govern France nor the people of France.

It's ok. We get it. You dropped out of high school to drop acid in the 60's maaaaaan....

 

[P@triot]

Here we go again Patriot(should be idiot) strait out of the constitution

Yeah....uh.....if you're going to accuse someone else of being an "idiot" then really need to get basic words like "straight" spelled properly you freaking ignorant tool.

To deny this is neither patriotic, truth full, nor is it supporting the ideals of the United States. So keep calling your self a conservative you piece of crap!!

Yeah....uh....that would be "truthful" not "truth full"

How can you call someone else a "piece of crap" when you're illiterate and how can you even attempt to discuss the U.S. Constitution when you're illiterate?

 

[oreo]

You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their religion.

Really? The guy who twice proclaimed that the Justice Department was part of the Judicial branch is going to attempt to tell me about the U.S. Constitution?

You can ban foreigners from entering this country for any reason at all - including for no reason. Foreigners have no right of access to the United States. None.

And not for nothing - but President Trump's Executive Order didn't ban anyone based on religion (which would literally be impossible). The ban was based on region.

No one is aruging the point that Presidents can't protect this country by banning certain area's from coming into this country. That is their primary responsbility--(protecting this nation.) Obama issued an executive order on Iraq banning them from coming to this country for 6 months and had no issues with it. But here is what happened to Trump and why it has flopped twice.

The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” That is the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban. "If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese."
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And that is the issue. These judges do not believe that this is a travel ban, they believe it is a Muslim ban because of the way that Trump campaigned, and his surrogates who have continually referred to it as a Muslim ban. Trump should have consulted with Sally Watts, acting attorney general first. Instead he went to one of his supporters (Rudi Guiliani) to write it, who then got on FOX News and declared that Trump had called it a Muslim Ban when referencing the executive order.

Now this judge believes this new and revised executive order is just another Muslim ban.

"Though the judges declined to express a view on those issues, they noted that numerous statements by Trump promising a “Muslim ban,” and similar remarks that go beyond the letter of the executive order, could be used for weighing the order’s constitutionality at a later stage."
Appeals Court Deals New Blow To Donald Trump's Travel Ban Targeting Muslims | The Huffington Post

 

[P@triot]

Here we go again Patriot(should be idiot) strait out of the constitution

Even the uneducated, stoned, gangbangers from NWA figured out how to spell "straight" properly

 

[P@triot]

The Establishment Clause forbids the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” That is the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah? And? An Executive Order is not a law. You don't even realize that a President cannot create law (or alter a law, or abolish a law). Epic Fail #1

In addition - the U.S. Constitution does not apply to foreigners (or U.S. citizens on foreign lands for that matter). So Congress can create any law they'd like regarding religion for foreigners. They can completely ban religion for foreigners. Epic Fail #2

Finally, Trump's Executive Order didn't ban muslims. To do that - he would have to ask people their religion and then permit them or ban them based on their answers. But that didn't happen. He banned all people from specific regions. Epic Fail #3

 

[P@triot]

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.

Barack Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo Bay. How'd that work out?

Barack Obama campaigned on having the most transparent government ever. Instead he delivered the most corrupt, secretive, and scandalous administration ever.

Barack Obama campaigned on "pay as you go" - promising never to add a single cent to the national debt. Instead, he added $10 trillion.

I hate to break it to you - but what President Trump campaigned on is irrelevant. He can campaign on "hanging n*ggers". As long as he doesn't actually do it, the courts have absolutely no grounds to stop him. It doesn't matter what he campaigned on - every single one of his Executive Orders have been 100% constitutional.

 

[P@triot]

And that is the issue. These judges do not believe that this is a travel ban, they believe it is a Muslim ban because of the way that Trump campaigned, and his surrogates who have continually referred to it as a Muslim ban.

It doesn't matter what these political activists with an agenda posing as "justices" believe. They don't get to have an opinion. They are required by law to only look at the facts. And the facts are to ban someone based on religion one would have to first determine their religion and then permit or deny them based on their answers. That did not happen!!! The ban is based on regions of the world. Whether the people from that region are muslim, Jewish, Catholics, or satanists - they are denied entry.

 

[oreo]

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.

Barack Obama campaigned on shutting down Guantanamo Bay. How'd that work out?

Barack Obama campaigned on having the most transparent government ever. Instead he delivered the most corrupt, secretive, and scandalous administration ever.

Barack Obama campaigned on "pay as you go" - promising never to add a single cent to the national debt. Instead, he added $10 trillion.

I hate to break it to you - but what President Trump campaigned on is irrelevant. He can campaign on "hanging n*ggers". As long as he doesn't actually do it, the courts have absolutely no grounds to stop him. It doesn't matter what he campaigned on - every single one of his Executive Orders have been 100% constitutional.

Apparently the 9th district court of appeals thought what he campaigned on was very revelant to their decision in blocking this executive order.

"Though the judges declined to express a view on those issues, they noted that numerous statements by Trump promising a “Muslim ban,” and similar remarks that go beyond the letter of the executive order, could be used for weighing the order’s constitutionality at a later stage."
Appeals Court Deals New Blow To Donald Trump's Travel Ban Targeting Muslims | The Huffington Post