The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, I'm sure you know the answer to this question.

What's a significant difference between these two clauses?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by 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.

 

[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.

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.

No, I really didn't.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Applies to everyone legally within the orders of the US.

Fixed it up for you.

 

[Lakhota]

The Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[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.

Applies to everyone legally within the orders of the US.

Fixed it up for you.

No, that's not in the text. You're adding words.

I thought you guys were supposed to worship the Constitution, not modify it by adding words and changing meanings.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Applies to everyone legally within the orders of the US.

Fixed it up for you.

No, that's not in the text. You're adding words.

I thought you guys were supposed to worship the Constitution, not modify it by adding words and changing meanings.

Just remind me, what part of the constitution you quoted?

 

[P@triot]

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?

Lakhota is completely and totally ignorant of firearm laws? Shocking. Sweetie, I have personally fired a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun (aka the "Tommy Gun" of the infamous gangster era), a fully automatic Uzi (with a silencer no less), and a fully automatic HK. All of them were 100% legal and owned by friends (and yes - the silencer on the Uzi is 100% legal and was authorized by the ATF).

I do not personally own a fully automatic - but not because they are not legal. I don't own one because of how expensive they are. Although my wife has been very gracious in allowing me to own a small arsenal, she won't agree to me spending $10,000 - $20,000 on a fully automatic.

How come you never check your facts before posting?

 

[P@triot]

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

Typical response from someone getting their ass handed to them with facts.

 

[Lakhota]

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?

Lakhota is completely and totally ignorant of firearm laws? Shocking. Sweetie, I have personally fired a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun (aka the "Tommy Gun" of the infamous gangster era), a fully automatic Uzi (with a silencer no less), and a fully automatic HK. All of them were 100% legal and owned by friends (and yes - the silencer on the Uzi is 100% legal and was authorized by the ATF).

I do not personally own a fully automatic - but not because they are not legal. I don't own one because of how expensive they are. Although my wife has been very gracious in allowing me to own a small arsenal, she won't agree to me spending $10,000 - $20,000 on a fully automatic.

How come you never check your facts before posting?

It's pretty simple to convert semi to full. Don't you know how? Is it legal to do so?

 

[P@triot]

Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, I'm sure you know the answer to this question.

What's a significant difference between these two clauses?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by 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.

There are none snowflake. Both refer to U.S. citizens only. When the founders penned it, they weren't thinking of Japanese citizens.

 

[Sunni Man]

Typical response from someone getting their ass handed to them with facts.

LOL......you and "facts" aren't even in the same zip code. .. ...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Actually if you're within 100 miles of any border you have VERY LIMITED rights no matter who you are according to the Patriot act.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Example

Judge Reaffirms Constitution Free Zones 100 Miles Inside U.S. Borders - I Have The Truth

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The scary thing is that's about 2/3rds of our population within that zone. In fact states like Florida are entirely within this range.

 

[P@triot]

It's pretty simple to convert semi to full. Don't you know how?

It is? You really expect any of us to take your firearms "knowledge" seriously when you didn't even know that fully automatics are legal?

Is it legal to do so?

No. It is not legal to "convert" a semi to a fully automatic. Why?

 

[BULLDOG]

What supreme body interprets the Constitution?

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

Really? So why do we have a supreme court?

 

[Lakhota]

It's pretty simple to convert semi to full. Don't you know how?

It is? You really expect any of us to take your firearms "knowledge" seriously when you didn't even know that fully automatics are legal?

Is it legal to do so?

No. It is not legal to "convert" a semi to a fully automatic. Why?

Duh, well I know they're legal with a permit - if one is legally qualified to get a permit. But you can't buy one at Walmart. Oh, and it has to be manufactured prior to May 1986. Gee, where does it say all that in the Constitution (2nd Amendment)?

 

[Lakhota]

It's pretty simple to convert semi to full. Don't you know how?

It is? You really expect any of us to take your firearms "knowledge" seriously when you didn't even know that fully automatics are legal?

Is it legal to do so?

No. It is not legal to "convert" a semi to a fully automatic. Why?

Why? Where does the 2nd Amendment say you can't convert to full auto? Who says you can't?

 

[USApatriotz]

That DELUSIONAL judge Watson in Hawaii should be IMPEACHED immediately!! The establishment clause doesn't apply to 7+ BILLION people on earth! It only applies to U.S. citizens so Trump is 100% right with his travel ban!! See below for the statute Trump used:

 

[Lakhota]

That DELUSIONAL judge Watson in Hawaii should be IMPEACHED immediately!! The establishment clause doesn't apply to 7+ BILLION people on earth! It only applies to U.S. citizens so Trump is 100% right with his travel ban!! See below for the statute Trump used:

View attachment 117573

Duh, but not based on religion.