Judge Roll
-
In other words, Heck,
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
****************
It merely says the STATES are not allowed to DISCRIMINATE against non-citizen people. It does NOT say, that the rights of
American citizens and other persons are the SAME RIGHTS, it says the basic rights that non-American citizens have, human
rights, safety from being harrassed, mistreated, as a CLASS of PEOPLE.
The sheriff never did that. The rancher never did that. The state never did that. It's dumb to twist words, redefine them, and
then smart off to me that I don't see where you are right.
You don't see where I am right.
-
While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
*************************************
I don't know where you got this, but it says illegal aliens do not enjoy all the rights.
Then, it says they have the same rights.
It's baloney. It's contradictory. I have in mind a new amendment, but we'll have to get a lot more conservatives
into the Senate, and a Republican president.
-
Cal, stop. Really. You can pretend that someone was making the case that illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens and are allowed to vote if you like, but nobody was. Stop flogging your straw man.
While I'd like to see how far down the rabbit hole you can take this before you'll admit you were wrong, it's getting kind of sad, even for you.
You said that illegal aliens have no rights. Was that wrong?
And can you produce someone who made the case that illegal aliens have all the rights of citizens and are allowed to vote? Or can you admit that this is just a smoke screen you're throwing up to avoid having to admit that you don't know what the constitution says?
Aren't you a grown man? Just admit you were wrong.
-
While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
*******************************
So, illegals are not granted all the rights granted to citizens.
And then, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable Constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
Explain how those two sentiments are the same.
I say, they are contraDICKtory. That's you. Man, you really are locked in to attacking, and defending attacking from
the ultra left side. You say you do this for a living? (no comment. I will not comment. I really won...'t....NO. I ... well,
maybe I should, but... NO. I will not comment. grrrrrr.)
-
Cal? Can you admit you were wrong? I'll give one more shot.
-
No, I'm not wrong. You are, as evidenced by your usual avoidance of pointed questions. You dance around them,
you never answer, then you insist that the other person is wrong.
Now I feel like Steve. You do it in discussions with him ALL the TIME.
The sheriff never deprived those illegals of "life, liberty, or property". He caught them COMMITTING A CRIME ON HIS PROPERTY.
This isn't about poor legal Chinese immigrants, dammit. The sheriff and the rancher DID GIVE THE criminal illegals
OVER TO THE AUTHORITIES, FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Please, stop being a twit. Surely you know better.
He caught them trespassing, and he and the sheriff turned them over to immigration officials.
Stop working so hard to be dumb. If you catch 16 illegals trying to break into your land,
tossing garbage all over the place, killing your cattle, breaking into your home, and threatening
you when you confront them, and you call the sheriff, and they are turned over to the immigration officials
to be deported, why in the hell would you be sued for violating some rights that THEY are said to have?
Regardless of previous decisions, they do not apply here. But do go on and blame conservatives for the Tuscon
shooting, and compare Republicans to nazis. It's par for your partisan efforts.
The Phyler vs Doe decision does concern me. WAS THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT OR FREAKIN NOT?
However, by their own stupid arse decision, you'd have to grant illegals the right to own guns and drivers licenses,
and land ownership, and the right to vote...
Oh yeah, that's what you leftists want.
-
"First Obama turned a very sad and, should-have-been, solemn event into a de facto campaign rally."
He did?
Explain how the president did that, John. By giving a speech about the victims? The "better angels of our nature" part of it?
Name one partisan, political thing he said. Here's the transcript.
You're probably going to want to take that back. You're not going to be able to find anything. Or maybe I was listening to a different speech. Or maybe you only listened to the commentary, not the speech.
"First Obama turned a very sad and, should-have-been, solemn event into a de facto campaign rally."
He did?
Explain how the president did that, John. By giving a speech about the victims? The "better angels of our nature" part of it?
Name one partisan, political thing he said. Here's the transcript.
You're probably going to want to take that back. You're not going to be able to find anything. Or maybe I was listening to a different speech. Or maybe you only listened to the commentary, not the speech.
You're probably going to want to re-read that transcript.
Ahem:
You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations - to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
To the 1st underlined & Bolded portion:
Really? There's no broad disagreement on gun safety laws? It doesn't happen to be a highly polarizing issue? Have I just woken up from a lobotomy?
To the 2nd underlined & Bolded portion:
That's actually an interpretation of what "ignorant Red-Staters" are seeking. Actually, them ignoramuses are seeking to "blame the worlds ails on those that are responsible for what ails the world." Yet, as you've endlessly suggested in other posts, "it's easier to write the story" about them thinking differently than us.
That's lazy. But you know that.
-
Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.
There's no pleasing some people.
-
Cal, you are really something. Never met anyone like you.
-
Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.
There's no pleasing some people.
Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.
There's no fooling some people.
He does still represent the Democratic party right? The Democratic party does have a pretty uni-lateral stance on gun safety / gun control laws correct?
Discussing "merits of gun safety laws" is partisan. Discussing "gun safety laws" is not. So yes, he's clearly addressing both sides with the power of suggestion- that the view he and his party hold, is superior.
And if the 2nd point I underlined isn't a completely overt shot at the right, then Glenn Beck has rational thoughts not only in his head, but on his chalkboard.
p.s. I fixed the mistake you made in your last line.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
No, I'm not wrong. You are, as evidenced by your usual avoidance of pointed questions. You dance around them,
you never answer, then you insist that the other person is wrong.
Now I feel like Steve. You do it in discussions with him ALL the TIME.
The sheriff never deprived those illegals of "life, liberty, or property". He caught them COMMITTING A CRIME ON HIS PROPERTY.
This isn't about poor legal Chinese immigrants, dammit. The sheriff and the rancher DID GIVE THE criminal illegals
OVER TO THE AUTHORITIES, FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Please, stop being a twit. Surely you know better.
He caught them trespassing, and he and the sheriff turned them over to immigration officials.
Stop working so hard to be dumb. If you catch 16 illegals trying to break into your land,
tossing garbage all over the place, killing your cattle, breaking into your home, and threatening
you when you confront them, and you call the sheriff, and they are turned over to the immigration officials
to be deported, why in the hell would you be sued for violating some rights that THEY are said to have?
Regardless of previous decisions, they do not apply here. But do go on and blame conservatives for the Tuscon
shooting, and compare Republicans to nazis. It's par for your partisan efforts.
The Phyler vs Doe decision does concern me. WAS THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT OR FREAKIN NOT?
However, by their own stupid arse decision, you'd have to grant illegals the right to own guns and drivers licenses,
and land ownership, and the right to vote...
Oh yeah, that's what you leftists want.
-
I just don't agree at all, Leg. I think it's about the blandest, bipartisan fare imaginable. He's talking to both sides.
-
Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.
There's no fooling some people.
He does still represent the Democratic party right? The Democratic party does have a pretty uni-lateral stance on gun safety / gun control laws correct?
Discussing "merits of gun safety laws" is partisan. Discussing "gun safety laws" is not. So yes, he's clearly addressing both sides with the power of suggestion- that the view he and his party hold, is superior.
And if the 2nd point I underlined isn't a completely overt shot at the right, then Glenn Beck has rational thoughts not only in his head, but on his chalkboard.
p.s. I fixed the mistake you made in your last line.
He does still represent the Democratic party right? The Democratic party does have a pretty uni-lateral stance on gun safety / gun control laws correct?
Discussing "merits of gun safety laws" is partisan. Discussing "gun safety laws" is not. So yes, he's clearly addressing both sides with the power of suggestion- that the view he and his party hold, is superior.
And if the 2nd point I underlined isn't a completely overt shot at the right, then Glenn Beck has rational thoughts not only in his head, but on his chalkboard.
p.s. I fixed the mistake you made in your last line.
Look who the cat dragged in. Must be getting boring in the fat no talent comics board?
-
I just don't agree at all, Leg. I think it's about the blandest, bipartisan fare imaginable. He's talking to both sides.
I just don't agree at all, Leg. I think it's about the blandest, bipartisan fare imaginable. He's talking to both sides.
And thus the basis of his appeal (to some/most). Despite disagreeing with the majority of the content, I've never doubted his speaking/reading* ability and his speech writers have always been top notch.
But it's simply a really, really well-placed barb along the lines of "if we had better gun laws, these kind of things wouldn't happen." That's not what he said, but that's what he means. That's why he's good. You can go back and comb the responses to VaTech, & Columbine, and you find a pretty similar party line. It's not new, nor out of the ordinary. But it's also not absent from Obama's speech. That's all I was getting at.
*Are teleprompter jokes still funny? Have they jumped the shark so long ago that they're ironically funny again?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login