The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[P@triot]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

 

[P@triot]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

 

[Andylusion]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

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

No. Sorry.

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

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

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

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

No. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lakhota]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

 

[P@triot]

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Actually - it's not. I don't agree to that at all. So much for your lie that it is "universally agreed upon". Oops. By the way, I highlighted the fact that you contradict yourself in the same breath.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. Lying about it on the internet will not change that.

 

[P@triot]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

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

 

[P@triot]

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

That's a very special form of idiocy that I can't even wrap my head around. Everything that I know about the U.S. Constitution comes from reading it. I've never listened to someone else's "interpretation" about it. Not once.

 

[Lakhota]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

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

So, according to the 2nd Amendment - you have the right to own any weapon you choose? Right? How many fully automatic weapons do you own? Sawed-off shotguns? Hand grenades? Bazookas?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Actually - it's not. I don't agree to that at all. So much for your lie that it is "universally agreed upon". Oops. By the way, I highlighted the fact that you contradict yourself in the same breath.

Are you under the impression that your worthless opinion is somehow relevant? You are welcome to disagree all you want, but you don't really get a say in it.

And as a side note, if you think that what you highlighted is a "contradiction", you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. Lying about it on the internet will not change that.

Of course it is. All Constitutions are.

 

[P@triot]

Time to end this before more left-winger attempt to argue their false narrative further. For the last time right here and now:

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document and as such, non-US citizens do not have constitutional rights. If they did, they could not be prevented from voting. And the law absolutely prevents any non-US citizen from voting.

"However, green card holders cannot do everything that U.S. citizens can. They cannot vote in U.S. elections."




Difference Between U.S. Green Card and U.S. Citizenship

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

That's a very special form of idiocy that I can't even wrap my head around. Everything that I know about the U.S. Constitution comes from reading it. I've never listened to someone else's "interpretation" about it. Not once.

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

 

[SYTFE]

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

That's a very special form of idiocy that I can't even wrap my head around. Everything that I know about the U.S. Constitution comes from reading it. I've never listened to someone else's "interpretation" about it. Not once.

Except Rush's interpretation of it, right H@triot?

 

[Sunni Man]

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

 

[P@triot]

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Actually - it's not. I don't agree to that at all. So much for your lie that it is "universally agreed upon". Oops. By the way, I highlighted the fact that you contradict yourself in the same breath.

Are you under the impression that your worthless opinion is somehow relevant? You are welcome to disagree all you want, but you don't really get a say in it.

It's not an "impression" my fragile little snowflake. You contradicted yourself in the same breath. It's what happens when someone is dead-wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

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

No. Sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have problem with that so much, as the claims about it being international. Which is why people claim we can't stop people from walking, flying, boating into our country, because they have rights.

No. You don't.

Moreover, the protection of the constitution are only for law abiding citizens. Obviously if you murder, rape, steal, vandalize and so on, we can take your money, take your stuff, take your freedom (prison), and even take your life (capital punishment).

If the rights of citizens was universal no matter if they committed a crime or not... then there are tons of murders, rapists, gangs, thieves and robbers that should be released... and for that matter, we should just close all police and security everywhere. No point in stopping someone robbing your house, since according to you they have unconditional rights.

Point being, that if you violate our laws, you don't have those rights anymore. (or shouldn't).

And if someone comes into the country illegally... they forfeit those rights too.

So I have no problem with deporting, or imprisoning and then deporting, as many illegals as we can catch. We are not violating their rights, since they are violating our laws. Pretty simple, unless you have your head shoved so far up your 'interpretations' that you can't see straight.

 

[P@triot]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

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

Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution which authorizes any "body" (any at all) to "interpret" the document itself. I'll wait....

 

[P@triot]

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document.

Of course it is. All Constitutions are.