We don't "need" a wall now- many want a wall- that is no need, but a desire- not much different than feeling superior for no good reason other than pure luck got you born here. A wall will require land confiscation from established citizens. It will cost more money that we don't have unless borrowed and adding to the insurmountable debt that your kids, kids, kids, kids, kids will be paying interest on and wondering why their ancestors were so free with OPM.
Correct. There were British subjects. By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects. Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
Liberty - 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.
LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...thelawdictionary.org
You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the unalienable Rights of all men.
I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
1) The colonists became free
What do you mean by "Free". As in not the citizen of a state?
I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market.
Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group. Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.
If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.
I don't like doing multi quote posts.
1) Free for purposes of citizenship meant that the individual had not sold themselves into servitude. Many Whites came here as indentured servants
We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
Correct. There were British subjects. By the act of rebellion, they stopped being British subjects. Are you arguing they became some sort of Citizen of the World, or stateless citizens?
And we chose to allow that. I'm sure if those people were half as demanding and ungrateful as the immigrants we get today, our Founding Fathers would have sent them packing.
Mmm, "absolute"? I do not have the liberty to come live in your house, against your wishes. Nor to take your property to use as I want.
The right of individuals are balanced by their conflict with the rights of others.
Liberty - 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.
LIBERTY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
Find the legal definition of LIBERTY from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. 1. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to...
You are conflating the privileges of citizenship with the unalienable Rights of all men.
I am stating that we have the right to decide who we want to come and join our society.
No outsider has the right to demand membership, in our group.
1) The colonists became free
What do you mean by "Free". As in not the citizen of a state?
I have no problem with rules on whom an employer can hire. Limitations on child labor, for one example. Asking them to verify that the person is here legally, is a reasonable part of maintaining a well regulated market.
Nope. Rights do not flow from the government nor the group, but are god given. What is being extended or denied is membership in our group. Outsiders still have those god given rights. Not being an American Citizens does not mean that, say, a Mexican does not have his rights. What he does not have, is membership in our group. ANd he never had a right to come here against our right to define our group.
If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
No, it does not. PEDRO GO HOME.
I don't like doing multi quote posts.
1) Free for purposes of citizenship meant that the individual had not sold themselves into servitude. Many Whites came here as indentured servants
a. So, indentured servant contracts were all nullified at that time? I never heard of that before. YOu sure?
b. So, the vast majority of the population, who were not indentured servants, NOTHING changed? That is not credible.
It is fine that you don't like multi-quotes. But then you have to reference the point you are addressing. That tells me nothing.
Not "a person". Policies and laws are not set to deal with "A PERSON". If you are arguing that Americans as a whole, do not have the right to limit who enters our territory, then you are arguing that EVERY GROUP IN THE PLANET does, from the most hate filled ISSIS worshiping tribe of barbarians, to all 1 billion chinese.
In that case, any discussion of America, or American laws or customs or actions is moot, because within our lifetime, we as as population would be utterly overwhelmed and the new, much larger and much poorer and almost completely different population that takes our place, will put together their own way of doing things, which ironically will not include open borders like you want.
As long as PEDRO goes home, call it what you will.
A legal definition? Interesting qualifiers. Are there OTHER legal definitions? In the same book? And just because you can argue something based on legalistic definitions, does not make it right. It might, MIGHT have the power of the state behind it, but that is not the same as being right.
No, it does not. Just because a power is not exercised, does not mean it ceases to exist. I have the power to move to another state. I have never done so, but I still have that power.
I do not possess the right to say, travel to Switzerland, if they do not want me there. It is their nation. They get to choose whether or not to allow me to travel there, and certainly whether or not to stay.
Likewise, Pedro, the Mexican, has not right to come here, against our wishes.
YOur talk of "presupposed minorities" does not change that.
Nope.
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Uncle Scam
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Uncle Scam
I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport. Delta is ready when you are!
Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Uncle Scam
I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport. Delta is ready when you are!
Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM. I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won. I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal. And your legal experience?
Only because I don't agree with you. But, to prove you wrong, let's do a simple Second Amendment exercise:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There are not a lot of words there, but notice that bolding of shall not be infringed. The word infringe is synonymous with the word limit:
Therefore, let us do what the liberals do when they claim unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. Let's substitute a synonym for infringe:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be limited."
But wait. The United States Supreme Court HELD in 2008 (in the Heller v. DC decision):
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
Read the dicta in the case. The United States Supreme Court admits that the Right to keep and bear Arms is the codification of a preexisting Right. From where did it come from? It came from the Declaration of Independence AND all prior United States Supreme Court rulings were consistent with that. For example:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
Sounds pretty unlimited to me. So, on what basis did the United States Supreme Court limit the Second Amendment and over turn their own ruling?
"...the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms..."
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
Your Second Amendment Rights are not judged on the Second Amendment, but on the 14th Amendment as the government is the grantor of "rights" under that Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights is all one bill (one law), the principle applies across the board. BTW, go back to the Heller decision. It says that "like most rights..." Look dude, either ALL of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or none are... unless something changed somewhere. I just showed you where it happened. So, you were ignorant. You've been schooled.
Who is limiting your 2nd Amendment rights?
Uncle Scam
I suggest immediate departure from the closest airport. Delta is ready when you are!
Why do have less knowledge about the Constitution than a high school student with Google?
If you believe what you just posted, you are the dumbest individual on USM. I've worked on two cases that made it to the United States Supreme Court (insignificant cases in the grand scheme of things) and were won. I have thirty six courtroom wins and never lost nor over-turned on appeal. And your legal experience?
Yeah, and if a frog could fly he would not bump hi ass.
Tell me another lie!
Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.
