Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on June 26, 2017, 11:14:47 AM
-
Of course, the MSM are rushing to say SCOTUS approved the "watered down" travel ban. Can't give Trump too much praise.
Now the question is, what are they going to do with a 90 day ban?
-
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/justices-agree-weigh-travel-ban-allow-parts-go-effect/
Looks like they allowed it except for the parts that will be argued later this year. I sort of assumed they would since the lower court rulings were so broad reaching as to create open borders for the US.
-
Wow. 9-0 to hear the case.
Really thought some of the more liberal justices would hail the activism of some of the lower courts.
-
I really would like to know how opponents of the ban have determined that US constitutional rights apply to foreigners in foreign lands . . .
-
I really would like to know how opponents of the ban have determined that US constitutional rights apply to foreigners in foreign lands . . .
:facepalm: Which ones? Some Constitutional rights are basic human rights that should apply to everyone. Ya know, that whole thing about how second amendment rights are inherent, and not a gift from the government? Sound familiar?
-
Certainly, but how is denying a foreign national, that has never been to the US, that is currently residing on foreign soil entry into the US a violation of their US constitutional rights?
-
"I really would like to know how opponents of the ban have determined that US constitutional rights apply to foreigners in foreign lands . . ."
Silly man! It's penance for the US being such a bull aggressor nation and making everyone feel unsafe!
-
No, but neither is denying a US citizen reentry into the country denying a Constitutional Right.
The fed.gov has pretty near universal control over the borders.
It should be remembered that the Constitution is not something that grants rights to people, it is a document that limits what the government can do to people. And yes those limits apply to everyone on earth. (Or should, after G-bay we kinda play fast and loose with limits on the gov.)
-
"Which ones? Some Constitutional rights are basic human rights that should apply to everyone. Ya know, that whole thing about how second amendment rights are inherent, and not a gift from the government? Sound familiar?"
Yes, it sounds VERY familiar.
But, not quite true, as the founders and framers NEVER intended those rights to apply to everyone.
Indians? Nope.
Enslaved blacks? Nope.
Free blacks? Maybe a little, but realistically, nope.
Women? Nope.
-
Lie-awatha Faux-cohantas, wrong as always:
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/06/26/doh-elizabeth-warrens-travel-ban-bet-aged-beautifully/
Once again, Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote; loses where it really counts:
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/06/26/hahaha-hillarys-spiked-ball-after-previous-travel-ban-ruling-boomerangs-big-time/
"Which ones? Some Constitutional rights are basic human rights that should apply to everyone. Ya know, that whole thing about how second amendment rights are inherent, and not a gift from the government? Sound familiar?"
Yes, it sounds VERY familiar.
But, not quite true, as the founders and framers NEVER intended those rights to apply to everyone.
Indians? Nope.
Enslaved blacks? Nope.
Free blacks? Maybe a little, but realistically, nope.
Women? Nope.
That's an interesting argument to have, but beside the point.
-
It was a mistake to listen to Rush today. He pointed out that this bill allows people or entities with ties to particular persons seeking to enter may file a hardship if the person is prevented from entering. Expect hunreds of thousands of lawsuits to be filed.
-
It was a mistake to listen to Rush today. He pointed out that this bill allows people or entities with ties to particular persons seeking to enter may file a hardship if the person is prevented from entering. Expect hunreds of thousands of lawsuits to be filed.
Isn't that just temporary until SCOTUS hears the case and makes a final ruling?
-
:facepalm: Which ones? Some Constitutional rights are basic human rights that should apply to everyone. Ya know, that whole thing about how second amendment rights are inherent, and not a gift from the government? Sound familiar?
So should the USA go to war because Britain, Japan, or Berzerkistan infringe on their citizen's right to keep and bear arms?
Is it unjust for denizens of Somalia, Burma, and Venezuela be denied ballots in the US Presidential elections?
Should our courts send Federal marshals to arrest the leaders of China, North Korea, and Turkey for shutting down newspapers and violating freedom of the press?
And which part of the U.S. Constitution established that we be a borderless area of the planet, without the ability to decide who enters? (I won't say "Nation" because without borders, we can't really be a nation.)
-
:facepalm: Which ones? Some Constitutional rights are basic human rights that should apply to everyone. Ya know, that whole thing about how second amendment rights are inherent, and not a gift from the government? Sound familiar?
Would it violate the second amendment for the US military to disarm civilian foreigners when we engage in warfare in another country?
NOPE.
Our Bill of Rights does not apply to foreigners in other countries, any more than their laws apply to us in our country.
-
Wait, are you two saying that our Constitutional rights are in fact granted to us by our government? ???
-
Wait, are you two saying that our Constitutional rights are in fact granted to us by our government? ???
No, what they are saying is that US Constitution does not apply to people outside the borders of the US (Except certain cases like US Servicemembers and diplomatic missions). While the inalienable rights recognized are universal, the US does not have the right to enforce those rights in other nations. (except for the aforementioned exceptions.)
-
Americans' constitutional rights comprise both human and civil rights. Or natural and social rights, if you prefer. Therefore, some, like the right to free exercise of religion, apply to everyone. (And no, that doesn't mean that our government is obligated to defend those rights around the world. If you think it does, see me after class.) Some, like the right to vote, apply only to certain people (usually, citizens).
-
Wait, are you two saying that our Constitutional rights are in fact granted to us by our government? ???
Our government is the only body obligated to respect said rights. The rest of the world can twist in the wind either way.
Now, the US Gov't actually holding up their and is an entirely different question.
-
"Wait, are you two saying that our Constitutional rights are in fact granted to us by our government?"
Not at all.
It's just a case of if you're not American, or in America with the intention of becoming a God fearing Christian American, it means you don't have any rights.
Because everyone knows that God emigrated to the United States in 1776.
"That's an interesting argument to have, but beside the point."
Not sure why you think it's somehow beside when the people who wrote the document you're citing as authoritative didn't even agree with its precepts.
If you were a white property-owning male back in 1787, you were in like Flynn.
Otherwise, you had to wait for some namby-pamby revisionist ahole judges to pervert the TRUE intention of the Constitution...
:rofl:
-
"That's an interesting argument to have, but beside the point."
Not sure why you think it's somehow beside when the people who wrote the document you're citing as authoritative didn't even agree with its precepts.
If you were a white property-owning male back in 1787, you were in like Flynn.
Oh, you thought I was appealing to originalism.
-
If you were a white property-owning male back in 1787, you were in like Flynn.
Property owning yes, skin color and sex didn't matter originally.
-
Property owning yes, skin color and sex didn't matter originally.
Property-owning sometimes. People talk about that like it's in the Constitution somewhere, but of course it is not.
-
I just wish you would appeal to something original...
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
Property-owning sometimes. People talk about that like it's in the Constitution somewhere, but of course it is not.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence, but I remember reading that "Life, liberty, and property" (or some variation of that) was under discussion at the time.
-
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence, but I remember reading that "Life, liberty, and property" (or some variation of that) was under discussion at the time.
I believe you are correct.
The right to property is mentioned in the bill of rights though:
"The Constitution protects property rights mainly through the Fifth Amendment's Takings or Just Compensation Clause: ''nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''"
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf
-
To the two previous posters:
Though I've not read Locke, I believe "life, liberty, and property" was a common theme in his writings, and modified by the 2nd Cont. Congress for inclusion in the Declaration. I don't think anyone's denying that the Constitution has something to say about property rights.
However, I think freakazoid was talking about the requirements, in many Anglo-American colonies, that voters own a certain amount of property. These persisted to varying degrees in the early U.S. Thomas G. West has suggested that, as the property requirement receded, it was replaced by restrictions based on sex and race.
-
I think if any of us lived as a common person in Europe at that time, the ability to own and use property would be very important to us.
When was voting declared a natural right? Or did the discussion just get sidetracked?
-
There is, and always has been, debate about whether Locke was a direct influence for Jefferson's statement in the Declaration.
I think it is likely that Locke's treatise was an influence, but the question is, was it a primary influence, or was it a secondary influence that came through Jefferson being heavily influenced by the thoughts and theories of George Mason and his writings, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights?
Wikipedia has an interesting discussion on the subject...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
-
Property owning yes, skin color and sex didn't matter originally.
Yes, skin color and gender did matter very much on a variety of levels in the early days of the Republic.
As I said, if you were a white property owner in the early days of the Republic, you were in like Flynn because there were virtually no restrictions, nuances, hindrances, etc., on your various rights.
Here's an interesting but very basic look at how voting rights progressed over the years.
http://classroom.synonym.com/people-gained-right-vote-early-1800s-16200.html
-
I think if any of us lived as a common person in Europe at that time, the ability to own and use property would be very important to us.
Of course.
When was voting declared a natural right?
When the Democratic Party decided that it could no longer get enough (legally valid) votes from citizens. That's when.
-
I believe you are correct.
The right to property is mentioned in the bill of rights though:
"The Constitution protects property rights mainly through the Fifth Amendment's Takings or Just Compensation Clause: ''nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''"
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf
I've read that "property" was changed to "pursuit of happiness" to broaden the concept the phrase protected; that is, the right to property did not go away, it became part of the "pursuit of happiness."
-
Wait, are you two saying that our Constitutional rights are in fact granted to us by our government? ???
Unfortunately, there are many that have passed through our public education system in the last 30 years that believe that very thing.