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.
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.We wouldn't need a wall if we opened the border region to hunting.
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
...
Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
According to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
When those words were penned, there were no American citizens. Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
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, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
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.
We presume Liberty to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, unalienable, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
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?
2) Your Rights end where my nose begins. You're trying to be flippant. Try honesty. Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want. Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government
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.
3) If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights. The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution. Allow me to quote something for you:
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.
"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."
If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.
If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
I defined Liberty in an earlier post.
You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group. That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution. But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.
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
2) I see you have no respect for the Fourth Amendment
3) If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States. Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family
4) If an individual is not within the jurisdiction, then the authorities have no authority over them
5) I gave a legal definition from Black's Law Dictionary for the word Liberty. Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community
6) The fact that foreigners DID come here from 1790 to 1875 without incident refutes your entire argument. And again, read the thread. The United States Supreme Court had no authority to legislate from the bench
7) Liberty is not yours to give, but if you don't want foreigners here then do not buy from them; don't sell to them; don't do business with companies that employ them; don't rent to them. IF they are not welcome, the presupposed minority (since you don't understand facts) we will decide and not have to involve the government.
I think you're filibustering for some TLDR replies from me. Great strategy, but intellectually dishonest. You can't handle the truth. Takes too long to explain.
We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.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.
Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services. It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate POLICE STATE gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it. So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line. Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
...
Free access to America, is not one of those rights, for non-Americans.
The same way that free access to Mexico is not a right for Americans.
THe crux of your position, is an unsupported assertion.
According to the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
When those words were penned, there were no American citizens. Yet we waged a war based on that principle.
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, although, our early laws only allowed free white people to become citizens, foreigners came from all over the world to engage in the free market.
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.
We presume Liberty to be a God given, absolute, inherent, natural, unalienable, irrevocable Right that is above the reach of government.
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?
2) Your Rights end where my nose begins. You're trying to be flippant. Try honesty. Employers should be able to hire the employee of their choice; sellers should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele; homeowners should be able to sell to whomever they want. Transactions should be voluntary, not mandated by the government
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.
3) If you are advocating that we choose who becomes a part of our society, then you are claiming that the government gives you your Rights. The government agrees by way of an illegally ratified Amendment to the Constitution. Allow me to quote something for you:
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.
"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."
If you will note, citizens get privileges and immunities, but ALL PERSONS are guaranteed Liberty as per that Amendment.
If the person is here illegally, hiding from the law, they are not "within our jurisdiction" and should be deported immediately.
I defined Liberty in an earlier post.
You gave your overly generous and personal definition. Which, neither I nor America are bound by.
Foreigners are not citizens and should not be a part of the group. That group was identified in the Preamble of the Constitution. But everybody is entitled to Liberty which includes the ability to participate in the free market.
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.
2) I see you have no respect for the Fourth Amendment
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.
3) If a person has Liberty, they have a Right to come to the United States. Just because someone shows up in your neighborhood does not mean that they are your family
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.
4) If an individual is not within the jurisdiction, then the authorities have no authority over them
As long as PEDRO goes home, call it what you will.
5) I gave a legal definition from Black's Law Dictionary for the word Liberty. Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary in the legal community
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.
6) The fact that foreigners DID come here from 1790 to 1875 without incident refutes your entire argument. And again, read the thread. The United States Supreme Court had no authority to legislate from the bench
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.
7) Liberty is not yours to give, but if you don't want foreigners here then do not buy from them; don't sell to them; don't do business with companies that employ them; don't rent to them. IF they are not welcome, the presupposed minority (since you don't understand facts) we will decide and not have to involve the government.
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.
I think you're filibustering for some TLDR replies from me. Great strategy, but intellectually dishonest. You can't handle the truth. Takes too long to explain.
Nope.
This just goes to show ya if you cut off all work arounds that illegals use to get food stamps and all other kinds of services theyll self deport ...hammer employers on top illegal problem solved ...millions wont even bother to come in the first place
This has been standard fare for misguided people for years, but most undocumented foreigners never even attempt to get food stamps and / or services. It's illegal and those who wanted the ultimate POLICE STATE gave us that National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. promising that would end it. So many of my Rights have been taken over this issue and I don't feel safe and it isn't changing the bottom line. Even when you disagree, you cannot change the will of the people.
Misguided ....err nope ....no siree
study after study over the years and even social workers who have opened thier mouths .....bankrupt hospitals in texas and cali ...get across the border get a court date? ....heres a work permit, food stamps your even eligible for cash assistance and what's left of Medicaid...
Quite a few states have programs for when they skip that court date .....and the stamps continue ....even housing assistance
I think you're the one who is misguided on it ....go find out for yourself
Put an end to social services for illegals ....it would make a huge dent in the problem ...
Arent you a tax is theft libertarian?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Hypocritically sovereign for sure. The fed gov't (and its elite employees) refuse to recognize sovereign unless/until they feel they can bullshit people about invading sovereign countries with lame excuses- they don't recognize sovereign states at home and they certainly don't recognize sovereignty of a person.As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.
You want to let one billion chinese move here?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
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.
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
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?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
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
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
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?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
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?
All men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats, no borders, no walls, no prejudice, etc.
Either you believe it or you don't. If you believe it, you live it. If you don't believe it you can't live it.
Aaron Tippen had a song- you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, you've go to be your own man, not a puppet on a string, never compromise what's right, uphold your family name, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything-
I find it awfully bizarre that you would cite the Declaration Of Independence yet not be able to wrap your head around the proclamation made...Do you understand what it means to Declare Independence from other nations? Do you know what sovereignty looks like?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is an international document framed to benefit the citizens of other nations?
AFTER the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and culminating in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution only applied to white people. Citizenship was restricted to them. Yet foreigners continued to come here for individual enrichment. AFTER the founders / framers were dead, the United States Supreme Court illegally gave powers to Congress that the United States Supreme Court does not have. That was enhanced by the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment.
Illegal passage of the 14th Amendment?
Yes, it was illegally ratified:
The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified on the pretext of making Blacks and Whites equal. What it really did was to nullify the Bill of Rights. Whereas the Bill of Rights was the codification of the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment reduced those Rights to government granted privileges that could be denied provided the government gave you "Due Process."
Simply put:
Bill of Rights = God given, irrevocable, unalienable, absolute, natural, inherent Rights that are above the reach of government
14th Amendment = Revoked the Bill of Rights and made your Rights subject to the whims of the federal government as if the government granted you your Rights
The 14th Amendment attempts to change who the grantor of your Rights are. Creator or government?
You are simply full of shit.
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"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
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.You want to let one billion chinese move here?
