A message from a Mexican to The USA

[Gdjjr]

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.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Either you believe those words, or you don't. There are no caveats. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If you don't then you have to believe your rights are inalienable if you believe in rights at all- as in grants and privileges and can be taken by the granter- or, they can be installed on an assembly line while being assembled. That is, after all, a means of creating. Right?! How can you believe in sovereignty?

If you don't believe in rights then what do you believe in? Merit? Entitlement? What exactly entitles one to be thought superior over another? Who makes the decision(s) concerning those qualifications and what criteria is approved from where? Do you believe those who make those decisions for you are superior to you in any fashion? Do you also let them tell you what is or isn't successful? Do you get their permission to shower? Eat? Sleep? Drink? Do they tell you what to think? By what authority do they have that power? Was it granted? Inquiring minds want to know the answers to the questions asked and many more to come.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

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:

infringe

infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus

www.freethesaurus.com

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.

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!

Screw you. You are a poseur that would wind up on the Wall of Shame if you were ever publicly identified. I don't lie and I resent it when cowards make such claims, especially anonymously... which is a testament to their character.

Yeah! I am not the one with delusions of grandeur!

You would be laughed out of any high school classroom, much less a college. Your posts belong in conspiracy theories because they are that looney tunes!

I have long considered putting you on ignore for idiocy above and beyond the call of duty. Now, I guess you have provided further evidence.


You do realize that having multiple screen names is against the rules.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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 Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

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:

infringe

infringe synonyms, antonyms, and related words in the Free Thesaurus

www.freethesaurus.com

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.

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!

Screw you. You are a poseur that would wind up on the Wall of Shame if you were ever publicly identified. I don't lie and I resent it when cowards make such claims, especially anonymously... which is a testament to their character.

Yeah! I am not the one with delusions of grandeur!

You would be laughed out of any high school classroom, much less a college. Your posts belong in conspiracy theories because they are that looney tunes!

I have long considered putting you on ignore for idiocy above and beyond the call of duty. Now, I guess you have provided further evidence.

You are an idiot and a liar. Please do put me on ignore so that I'm not subjected to your holier than thou B.S. and your inability to understand basic legal concepts. Son, you were never in the Army. If the Army was such a good place, you wouldn't need to use a Navy officer's name as your board name. Thanks for the acknowledgment, however. I was a Seabee.

Insofar as "delusions of grandeur," that showed us what a low IQ you really have. On more than one occasion I've offered critics the opportunity to come to my house OR to a public place near here and let's look at my actual files. And grandeur? I admitted the two big cases I worked on were insignificant (one was related to whether or not the government could prove that the defendant understood the law in the manner it was written - did he willfully disobey the law? The other case was whether or not a county could charge fees in order for an organization to hold a public rally.) But, on a resume' they do not ask for specifics. If I had delusions of grandeur, I would not have mentioned what the cases were about.

Since you have nothing, you have sunk to some very low depths (to use some Navy lingo.) Trying to have a pissing match does nothing for this thread. It only exposes your lack of any appreciable IQ. I mean, how many IQ points does it take to initiate a pissing match simply because you don't like the facts and have NOTHING to counter them with? If you have anything further to say to me not related to the topic, take it to PM.

 

[Gdjjr]

LOL- you go Porter- the er, admiral is a typical holier than thou student claiming to be a teacher- don't take it private- sell tickets and popcorn for the audience!

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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?

I'm more of a constitutionalist that says what California does is California's business. It's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get social services and the federal government is under no obligation to help states fund people they can't afford. Been hearing that broke hospital B.S. for nearly 30 years yet those hospitals are still going.

Ok fine the hospitals are bullshit

Social services ....its not just cali . Thiers no denying or sugar coating it

 

[basquebromance]

it was not an immigrant picking strawberries at 8 bucks an hour who destroyed the economy in 2008. it was the crooks on Wall Street, my friends!

 

[Wyatt earp]

We wouldn't need a wall if we opened the border region to hunting.

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.

Luck?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

it was not an immigrant picking strawberries at 8 bucks an hour who destroyed the economy in 2008. it was the crooks on Wall Street, my friends!

The black guy, Franklin Rains destroyed the economy in 2008.

 

[Correll]

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.

We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
Rights are inherent, not tangible. They are determined and exercised by the Individual. They can be restricted, but not stopped, taken or given.
ALL men have certain unalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats. ...

And included in those rights, is NOT the right to come to America.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I'm more of a constitutionalist that says what California does is California's business. It's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get social services and the federal government is under no obligation to help states fund people they can't afford. Been hearing that broke hospital B.S. for nearly 30 years yet those hospitals are still going.

Ok fine the hospitals are bullshit

Social services ....its not just cali . Thiers no denying or sugar coating it

Here is where I stand:

I've worked in and around this issue for nearly FOUR DECADES. In terms of practical experience I have no superiors and damn few equals. AND, I've been on all sides of the issue with the intent of having established the credibility to speak out. So, is there a problem? Yes. No nation can survive an amalgamation of races, cultures, religions, political points of view, etc. At the same time, the right got conned by the left and is now proposing solutions that WILL NOT WORK.

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.

We're not Switzerland- and rights and wishes are not the same thing.
Rights are inherent, not tangible. They are determined and exercised by the Individual. They can be restricted, but not stopped, taken or given.
ALL men have certain unalienable rights- among these are, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats. ...

And included in those rights, is NOT the right to come to America.

The Right to Liberty has a meaning. Like the Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear Arms (which helps the people enforce the Right to Liberty) the Right to Liberty was a Right that preexisted before the Constitution was written. I want you to look at two older court rulings. Note that they do not limit Rights to citizens, but maintain the Right for individuals:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

 

[Porter Rockwell]

LOL- you go Porter- the er, admiral is a typical holier than thou student claiming to be a teacher- don't take it private- sell tickets and popcorn for the audience!

After I fought back at his silliness, I watched him try to provoke another poster over their board name. He can't stay on point. This stuff is just entertainment for a guy that apparently has no real life.

 

[Correll]

As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.

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.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here. Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.

That was not an answer, that was a dodge.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Do those words apply to any human in Mexico ,western europe ,Russia ,....nope

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.

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.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here. Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.

That was not an answer, that was a dodge.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.

 

[Correll]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who to invite or not.

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.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

If you do not do business with the Chinese, they have no reason to come here. Never ask the government to do something for you that you can do better, and less costly, on your own.

That was not an answer, that was a dodge.

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

They wouldn't move here if the country was run the way I think it should be run.

Weill if your plan to get rid of illegals doesnt include cutting off thier bevy of welfare benefits whatcha got...

 

[Gdjjr]

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.

You're seeing what you want to see. Can you point out specific wording that leads to that feeling?

 

[Gdjjr]

Luck?

What do you call being born here?

 

[Gdjjr]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already

 

[Gdjjr]

Do those words apply to any human in Mexico ,western europe ,Russia ,....nope

This isn't western europe, or russia- so you tell me what they apply to.