ihopehefails
VIP Member
- Oct 3, 2009
- 3,384
- 228
- 83
- Banned
- #1
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
All states DO have anti-terror legislation if, by "anti-terror legislation," you mean laws against flying planes into tall buildings, sending antrhax to people in the mail, blowing yourself up in a public place, etc. Do any one of those things in any state, and I'll guarantee you - you will be sent away for a long, long time.
Now - you mention a law against "any member of Al Quaeda entering their jurisdiciton." If THAT's your definition of "anti terror legislation," then you might have a problem. I don't think a law preventing someone from going into a state merely because of their racial, religious or ethnic origin, would pass constitutional muster.
I am somewhat amused at your phrase, "tried and hung immediately." If we're going to go about it that way, why waste time with a trial?
Good OP, however. Not a bad thought. Just a tad extreme.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
All states DO have anti-terror legislation if, by "anti-terror legislation," you mean laws against flying planes into tall buildings, sending antrhax to people in the mail, blowing yourself up in a public place, etc. Do any one of those things in any state, and I'll guarantee you - you will be sent away for a long, long time.
Now - you mention a law against "any member of Al Quaeda entering their jurisdiciton." If THAT's your definition of "anti terror legislation," then you might have a problem. I don't think a law preventing someone from going into a state merely because of their racial, religious or ethnic origin, would pass constitutional muster.
I am somewhat amused at your phrase, "tried and hung immediately." If we're going to go about it that way, why waste time with a trial?
Good OP, however. Not a bad thought. Just a tad extreme.
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Constitution
Exactly.Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
States? What states?
Oh, those states ....well, Ape Lincoln and the 17th Amendment turned them into mere provinces.
Thank you for asking. Next question, please.
.
All states DO have anti-terror legislation if, by "anti-terror legislation," you mean laws against flying planes into tall buildings, sending antrhax to people in the mail, blowing yourself up in a public place, etc. Do any one of those things in any state, and I'll guarantee you - you will be sent away for a long, long time.
Now - you mention a law against "any member of Al Quaeda entering their jurisdiciton." If THAT's your definition of "anti terror legislation," then you might have a problem. I don't think a law preventing someone from going into a state merely because of their racial, religious or ethnic origin, would pass constitutional muster.
I am somewhat amused at your phrase, "tried and hung immediately." If we're going to go about it that way, why waste time with a trial?
Good OP, however. Not a bad thought. Just a tad extreme.
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
That pesky Constitution, I'm afraid. First Amendment. People are free to belong to any organization they choose in this country - even those that advocate violent overthrow of the government. Unless and until they actually engage in violent overthrow (or attempts to do same), they can come and go as they please.
Suppose an Al Quaeda member is walking down a street in Los Angeles. Should he be arrested? What for? How do you prove he intends to do harm to our country - merely by membership in an organization that advocates such? Not enough.
All of this has been litigated a long, long time ago.
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
I am truly speechless. This is why I am so intrigued by your philosophy on certain issues.
All states DO have anti-terror legislation if, by "anti-terror legislation," you mean laws against flying planes into tall buildings, sending antrhax to people in the mail, blowing yourself up in a public place, etc. Do any one of those things in any state, and I'll guarantee you - you will be sent away for a long, long time.
Now - you mention a law against "any member of Al Quaeda entering their jurisdiciton." If THAT's your definition of "anti terror legislation," then you might have a problem. I don't think a law preventing someone from going into a state merely because of their racial, religious or ethnic origin, would pass constitutional muster.
I am somewhat amused at your phrase, "tried and hung immediately." If we're going to go about it that way, why waste time with a trial?
Good OP, however. Not a bad thought. Just a tad extreme.
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
That pesky Constitution, I'm afraid. First Amendment. People are free to belong to any organization they choose in this country - even those that advocate violent overthrow of the government. Unless and until they actually engage in violent overthrow (or attempts to do same), they can come and go as they please.
Suppose an Al Quaeda member is walking down a street in Los Angeles. Should he be arrested? What for? How do you prove he intends to do harm to our country - merely by membership in an organization that advocates such? Not enough.
All of this has been litigated a long, long time ago.
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
I am truly speechless. This is why I am so intrigued by your philosophy on certain issues.
Being a member of a foreign terrorist organization with the intention to do harm is sufficient to make an arrest since this organization has declared war on us. He is not entering to rob any particular individual but to attack a country so why can't a state apprehend anyone who belongs to such and organization?
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:
That pesky Constitution, I'm afraid. First Amendment. People are free to belong to any organization they choose in this country - even those that advocate violent overthrow of the government. Unless and until they actually engage in violent overthrow (or attempts to do same), they can come and go as they please.
Suppose an Al Quaeda member is walking down a street in Los Angeles. Should he be arrested? What for? How do you prove he intends to do harm to our country - merely by membership in an organization that advocates such? Not enough.
All of this has been litigated a long, long time ago.
I actually don't have a problem with hanging them on site but we got rules to operate by so we have to have a quick trial and then fry him up.
I am truly speechless. This is why I am so intrigued by your philosophy on certain issues.
Shades of Judge Roy Bean there, except Bean said he would have a "fair trial then hang 'em".
If someone breaks a state law, they can certainly be prosecuted under state law. I don't think belonging to al qaida is a crime in most states, reprehensible as it is.
Most states turn over criminals to the feds for prosecution when applicable. The feds have a reputation for tough prosecution and tough sentencing. I would also think that the federal government paying for the cost of the trial and imprisonment (or hanging) is an attractive option to the states.
Ihope! Where ya been, kid? I've missed you. OK - down to business:
That pesky Constitution, I'm afraid. First Amendment. People are free to belong to any organization they choose in this country - even those that advocate violent overthrow of the government. Unless and until they actually engage in violent overthrow (or attempts to do same), they can come and go as they please.
Suppose an Al Quaeda member is walking down a street in Los Angeles. Should he be arrested? What for? How do you prove he intends to do harm to our country - merely by membership in an organization that advocates such? Not enough.
All of this has been litigated a long, long time ago.
I am truly speechless. This is why I am so intrigued by your philosophy on certain issues.
Shades of Judge Roy Bean there, except Bean said he would have a "fair trial then hang 'em".
If someone breaks a state law, they can certainly be prosecuted under state law. I don't think belonging to al qaida is a crime in most states, reprehensible as it is.
Most states turn over criminals to the feds for prosecution when applicable. The feds have a reputation for tough prosecution and tough sentencing. I would also think that the federal government paying for the cost of the trial and imprisonment (or hanging) is an attractive option to the states.
Interesting points but what if the federal government isn't prosecuting the war on terror aggressive enough? Wouldn't states be obligated to protect their own citizens in a manor that they think is best for them? In this case, it might be immediate arrest for any member of a foreign terrorist organization that intends of harming the one of the United States of America. I would think a state is allowed to protect itself in a manor that it think is best.
Why can't states have their own anti-terror legislation that states that if any member of al-queada enter their jurisdiction that they will be tried and hung immediatley.
Constitution
Its composed of four pages. Can you tell me what part of the constitution prohibits states from doing this?