Another Fifth Column Judge, Fernandez Rodriguez, subverts the legislative intent of the Alien Enemies Act

[White 6]

Who was the cotus written for? If you say everyone, then you agree that the cotus rights apply to everyone? So you'd have to agree then, that any illegal who crossed into our country from anywhere in thread world, can legally walk into a gun store and buy firearms?

No, I wouldn't. That is just a cheap false connection, not even valid in your own mind, defying basic logic. This isn't a gun control issue.
The late George Carlin had your number.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, I wouldn't. That is just a cheap false connection, not even valid in your own mind, defying basic logic. This isn't a gun control issue.
The late George Carlin had your number.

You're right, it isn't a gun control issue, it's establishing who the cotus was written for. If you think illegals are granted the rights under the cotus, then you agree they also have 2nd amendment rights.

 

[White 6]

So you answer your red herring with another red hereings? We gotta stop this, we're running out of herrings!

Try these. They're great! They heat up fast, on the jeep manifold while going over map and scheme of the maneuver, while you are being re-armed and resupplied in the field.

 

[postman]

.
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”[/I]

This is where common sense has to rein.
If laws are to be interpreted by the intent, and not the words (letter of the law), then there would be no need to write a law with any specificity. Since their intent would correct any errors.

If instead laws were interpreted in their words, if the legislature intended something different as a result, they can always by a simple majority vote correct any error in language.

Secondly, if laws were interpreted by the intent, be careful what you wish for. Because laws worded as health and safety, but the intent was to curb abortion, would be thrown out under the intent being unconstitutional.

 

[WEATHER53]

Constitution of United Stares
Not Constitution for the planet

 

[postman]

Constitution of United Stares
Not Constitution for the planet

Except for the inalienable rights.

 

[WEATHER53]

Except for the inalienable rights.

They have legal rights with issues of humanitarian and theoretical unalienable as debatable. Some rights that citizens have are alienable to illegals. They can’t vote for example

 

[johnwk]

We are not in a declared war with Venezuela, and Venezuelan army has not invaded us.

Please stop twisting yourself in to these unsustainable contortions...

Which is not the only circumstances stated by the "law".

See An act respecting Alien Enemies

" . . . or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States . . . "

 

[johnwk]

You are correct. Actual war is not required.

One thing is certainly true. Our Fifth Column crowd, which constantly defends an open border and flooding the United States with millions of illegal entrant foreign nationals, always accuses others of what they themselves are guilty of.

JWK

They are not liberal or progressive democrat leaders. They are authoritarian socialist revolutionaries.

 

[johnwk]

This is where common sense has to rein.
If laws are to be interpreted by the intent . . .

Interpreted? More to the point is, expounded upon.



What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate and in harmony with our system of law is when its opinion is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)