Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[bodecea]

but its not the left who thinks the rights are endowed by the creator

but like...i can see anyone being a hypocrite who thinks theyre from a creator.......

but only for Americans

what did the founders state?

uhh, this is in reference to dupes who have the belief that god, not america and its founders, bestowed their rights upon them

uhh, too deep for ya?

if they were bestowed upon you by ..

hrmmm..


GAWWDDDddd


youd think youd uhh, listen to that mother ****** mebbe

No, that isn't what you stated. People on the right know our founding fathers used a creator to create our nation. Again read your dollar bill stupid fk !

"used a creator??"

In god we trust! Notice that word GOD on your currency

Is the money worth less without that word on it?

 

[danielpalos]

No, we are not.

Yes we are, moron. Remember this?

"What "rights" do foreigners residing on foreign soil have in America?"

Where is that distinction in our US Constitution?

Only national socialist right wing constitutions, do that.

You actually believe the US government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners residing in foreign countries? How would that work? Did we protect the rights of Syrians when ISIS chopped their heads off?

For your information, the distinction is made right at the top:

"We the people of the United States of America."

Is the US Constitution "national socialist right wing?"

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know what the words "born" and "naturalized" mean?
Apparently not as millions of current trespassers were neither "born" nor "naturalized" on US soil.

That makes them not citizens.

It doesn't mean that constitutional rights don't apply to them.

Like providing them with a comfortable ride to their border.
Or not letting them in via an airplane flight?
What's your problem?

due process?

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know what the words "born" and "naturalized" mean?
Apparently not as millions of current trespassers were neither "born" nor "naturalized" on US soil.

That makes them not citizens.

It doesn't mean that constitutional rights don't apply to them.

They have the right to due process, which means a short hearing before they are put on a bus to Tijuana. They are not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights.

is there some, "secret probationary, supreme law of the land", we don't know about?

nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Of course it applies to everyone on US soil and not just the states.


Another reason this is a constitutional crisis is that many of these people have a legal right to be here. Then there's the fact that Drumpf decided arbitrarily which countries are harboring ISIL, which of course, don't include any where he has business interests.

So far, Trumpery has done nothing but mix and stir. He's not just corrupt and criminal. He's stupid. So are his fans who still haven't realized that only our southern border is secure.

Duh.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[oreo]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Trump's executive order is turning out to be a comedy T.V. reality show. Trump skirts around the acting Attorney General, Sally Watts, then has Rudi Giuliani concoct this executive order, then fires Sally Watts for her telling her staff to NOT defend his order because it's unconstitutional--LOL

If you've got some reading comprehension skills this article pretty well nails it, as to why Trump's order was unconstitutional. Very good, detailed article.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

If Trump challenges this it will end up in the 9th district court of appeals, if they agree with the district court judge then it probably settles the issue, if not it will end up in the U.S. Supreme court as an emergency action.

Not too many Presidents in history created a constitutional crisis within 8 days of being in office.

To add insult to injury he didn't even ban Saudi Arabia who on 9/11 killed 3000 Americans. There is a reason for that.
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...le-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html?_r=0

There's no constitutional crisis.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Not a word about pending judicial review or oversight. Not a word about restrictions or limitations. It's clear and unambiguous. The statute grants the president plenary power.

No crisis whatsoever, except in your confused little liberal head.

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

When a President starts firing judicial heads, because they disagree--it is considered a constitutional crisis.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes we are, moron. Remember this?

"What "rights" do foreigners residing on foreign soil have in America?"

Where is that distinction in our US Constitution?

Only national socialist right wing constitutions, do that.

You actually believe the US government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners residing in foreign countries? How would that work? Did we protect the rights of Syrians when ISIS chopped their heads off?

For your information, the distinction is made right at the top:

"We the people of the United States of America."

Is the US Constitution "national socialist right wing?"

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

Obviously facts are unable to penetrate your skull.

 

[Boss]

Of course it applies to everyone on US soil and not just the states.


Another reason this is a constitutional crisis is that many of these people have a legal right to be here. Then there's the fact that Drumpf decided arbitrarily which countries are harboring ISIL, which of course, don't include any where he has business interests.

So far, Trumpery has done nothing but mix and stir. He's not just corrupt and criminal. He's stupid. So are his fans who still haven't realized that only our southern border is secure.

Duh.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

[bripat9643]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

Trump's executive order is turning out to be a comedy T.V. reality show. Trump skirts around the acting Attorney General, Sally Watts, then has Rudi Giuliani concoct this executive order, then fires Sally Watts for her telling her staff to NOT defend his order because it's unconstitutional--LOL

If you've got some reading comprehension skills this article pretty well nails it, as to why Trump's order was unconstitutional. Very good, detailed article.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

If Trump challenges this it will end up in the 9th district court of appeals, if they agree with the district court judge then it probably settles the issue, if not it will end up in the U.S. Supreme court as an emergency action.

Not too many Presidents in history created a constitutional crisis within 8 days of being in office.

To add insult to injury he didn't even ban Saudi Arabia who on 9/11 killed 3000 Americans. There is a reason for that.
Countries where Trump does business are not hit by new travel restrictions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...le-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html?_r=0

There's no constitutional crisis.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

14 (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President


Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Not a word about pending judicial review or oversight. Not a word about restrictions or limitations. It's clear and unambiguous. The statute grants the president plenary power.

No crisis whatsoever, except in your confused little liberal head.

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

"Fiscal conservative" is a euphemism leftwingers use meaning "tax and spend liberal."

It hasn't been overruled, moron.

 

[Boss]

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

No, you're a ******* idiot arguing a liberal protest point that has no validity.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

 

[danielpalos]

Where is that distinction in our US Constitution?

Only national socialist right wing constitutions, do that.

You actually believe the US government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners residing in foreign countries? How would that work? Did we protect the rights of Syrians when ISIS chopped their heads off?

For your information, the distinction is made right at the top:

"We the people of the United States of America."

Is the US Constitution "national socialist right wing?"

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

Obviously facts are unable to penetrate your skull.

national socialist right wing fantasy, is all you have.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know what the words "born" and "naturalized" mean?
Apparently not as millions of current trespassers were neither "born" nor "naturalized" on US soil.

That makes them not citizens.

It doesn't mean that constitutional rights don't apply to them.

They have the right to due process, which means a short hearing before they are put on a bus to Tijuana. They are not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights.

is there some, "secret probationary, supreme law of the land", we don't know about?

nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

In a sense that's true since you don't have a clue what the law of the land actually is.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course it applies to everyone on US soil and not just the states.


Another reason this is a constitutional crisis is that many of these people have a legal right to be here. Then there's the fact that Drumpf decided arbitrarily which countries are harboring ISIL, which of course, don't include any where he has business interests.

So far, Trumpery has done nothing but mix and stir. He's not just corrupt and criminal. He's stupid. So are his fans who still haven't realized that only our southern border is secure.

Duh.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

so what; we have a federal government to enforce federal law.

only the national socialist right wing, fantasizes about a unitary general government.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you know what the words "born" and "naturalized" mean?
Apparently not as millions of current trespassers were neither "born" nor "naturalized" on US soil.

That makes them not citizens.

It doesn't mean that constitutional rights don't apply to them.

They have the right to due process, which means a short hearing before they are put on a bus to Tijuana. They are not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights.

is there some, "secret probationary, supreme law of the land", we don't know about?

nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

In a sense that's true since you don't have a clue what the law of the land actually is.

let me know when your national socialist right wing fantasy ends, and you come back down to reality.

 

[Boss]

Another reason this is a constitutional crisis is that many of these people have a legal right to be here.

...all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

but its not the left who thinks the rights are endowed by the creator

but like...i can see anyone being a hypocrite who thinks theyre from a creator.......

but only for Americans

what did the founders state?

uhh, this is in reference to dupes who have the belief that god, not america and its founders, bestowed their rights upon them

uhh, too deep for ya?

if they were bestowed upon you by ..

hrmmm..


GAWWDDDddd


youd think youd uhh, listen to that mother ****** mebbe

No, that isn't what you stated. People on the right know our founding fathers used a creator to create our nation. Again read your dollar bill stupid fk !

"creator"

Not even close and the founding fathers did not decree that US money be printed with the name of any of the various gods. Just like "god" was added later to the pledge of allegiance, it was added to our money.

Take note that journalism is mentioned in the constitution but god is not. Which one do the RWNJs and trumpery want to take away and which do they want to force on us?

Look up the meaning of "e pluribus unim" and quit insulting the men and women who fought and lost their lives for the US Constitution that guarantees freedom from having any and all religions forced on us.

You and trumpery both should actually read the document you say you know everything about.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bripat9643]

You actually believe the US government is obligated to protect the rights of foreigners residing in foreign countries? How would that work? Did we protect the rights of Syrians when ISIS chopped their heads off?

For your information, the distinction is made right at the top:

"We the people of the United States of America."

Is the US Constitution "national socialist right wing?"

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

Obviously facts are unable to penetrate your skull.

national socialist right wing fantasy, is all you have.

Facts, in other words.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

we have a Bill of Rights.

It doesn't apply to foreigners residing on foreign soil, dumbass. How many times to you have to be told that before it penetrates your thick skull?

Only the national socialist right wing claims that. Nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

Obviously facts are unable to penetrate your skull.

national socialist right wing fantasy, is all you have.

Facts, in other words.

Not in the US. Alternative facts don't count.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[oreo]

I am not a liberal I am a Fiscal Conservative Independent. Now if you want to get your head out of your ass and actually READ the link I just gave you, instead of re--posting your's over and over again--you might actually LEARN something NEW--and why this executive order was challenged and overruled by a Federal district court judge.

No, you're a ******* idiot arguing a liberal protest point that has no validity.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

You all might want to read about the Establishment clause.

Trump’s order does indeed attempt to use the pretext of “territories,” but it cannot conceal the anti-Muslim animus that lies just beneath its surface. If Trump’s previous comments aren’t enough evidence, consider what his adviser Rudy Giuliani admitted on Saturday night while being interviewed on Fox News: Giuliani explained how he helped Trump create a Muslim ban that would also be legal, per the president’s request. “When he first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban,’ ” Giuliani explained.

He called me up and said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together … and what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are [sic] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

But unfortunately for Trump and Giuliani, an unconstitutional executive order does not become lawful because it is dressed up in fatuous legalese. And while courts are sometimes hesitant to examine a law’s legislative history to uncover its true intent, they should not ignore Trump’s own descriptions of his goals. Unlike a congressional act—which requires the votes of myriad people, some of whom may have different views of the bill before them—this executive order was signed by one man: Trump. He is responsible for it, and his words should guide the courts’ interpretation of its meaning and intent.
Trump’s Executive Order Is an Unconstitutional Attack on Muslims. It Must Be Struck Down In Its Entirety.

And because Trump did not include countries that are well known for attacking Americans, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, it will make this executive order even look more suspect to District court judges and the U.S. Supreme court. Firing the U.S attorney general over this will also be frowned upon. You cannot ban people from entering this country based on their Religion.

 

[oreo]

Do you know what the words "born" and "naturalized" mean?
Apparently not as millions of current trespassers were neither "born" nor "naturalized" on US soil.

That makes them not citizens.

It doesn't mean that constitutional rights don't apply to them.

They have the right to due process, which means a short hearing before they are put on a bus to Tijuana. They are not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Bill of rights.

is there some, "secret probationary, supreme law of the land", we don't know about?

nobody takes the national socialist right wing seriously about the law or economics.

In a sense that's true since you don't have a clue what the law of the land actually is.

Get your crayons and coloring books out, it looks like there is another judicial department in government today, called FOX NEWS, lead by department chief Rudi Giulani--LOL