Those amendments restrict what government actions can be taken against US citizens. This is also why when the military operates they don't need to worry about the 4th amendment. When we detain enemy combatants we don't have to worry about the 8th amendment. Show me the court case where the SC has ever ruled otherwise when it comes to the bill of rights applying to non-citizens.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Lol kinda like how the US govt can ignore habeas corpus when it comes to non-citizens, right?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Non citizens who are not in US territory. The bill of rights doesn't reach to foreigners who are not in the USA.
They did keep enemy combatants in guantanamo bay for a reason, after all.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It is interesting to me that you of all people are trying to make the constitution say things it does not say. There are parts of the constitution that are explicitly defined as having to do with citizens. There are other parts where citizenship is not mentioned. Some (most) would therefore take the view that those parts that are specifically about the rights of citizens--and the limits on congress's powers wrt to those rights--apply to citizens and those parts that don't say anything about citizens apply to everyone since they protect unalienable natural rights that people have regardless of citizenship status.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I was under the impression that SCOTUS ultimately found that the constitution protected the right to habeas corpus even for those detainees.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
For someone who loves the Constitution, I have to wonder if you ever carefully read it.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub
Hope is the denial of reality
You and he are incorrect. I haven't read all of what he wrote but he's basically saying that there should be no legal difference between citizen and non-citizen which leads me to believe he's some globalist liberal that probably loves the UN and thinks we should look to other countries for definitions of 'cruel and unusual.'
He cites numerous cases...
Hope is the denial of reality
All right so I looked it up and yes, some liberal judges are liberal. And not at all logically consistent in its applications. Nonetheless it still wouldn't violate the constitution to restrict immigration on the basis of a security threat.
It applies. The curlique is a standing issue, who has a right to bring the legal challenge, not who the government can act against.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Except Cruz isn't basing it on a security threat; he's basing it entirely on religion. We're not talking about using religion as one criterion; we're talking about it being the only one. There's no way that's consistent with the first amendment. You could stick your head in the ground all you want, but the Constitution and the judicial interpretation of it on this issue are clear-cut.
Hope is the denial of reality
So if the US government decides that non-citizen Muslims will be refused a green card or visa to visit the USA then who will have the standing to take that to trial. Based on previous case history, would SCOTUS overturn such a regulation?
If non-citizens who are not in the USA lack standing to bring up the case while citizens lack standing as it doesn't apply to them, then SCOTUS would in practice let the law stand. I imagine standing would be found eg for a citizen who wanted a green card or visa for a relative or spouse.
Someone already in the US who can demonstrate that it "harms" (i.e. discommodes) them somehow. A family member, a travel agency, a business seeking to hire or train the person, someone here who was involved at some level with their attempt to come over. And yeah, based on previous case history SCOTUS would overturn an exclusion rule based wholly or primarily on a specific religion. And not by a 5/4 decision either. There isn't a religion test the Court has invented which that rule wouldn't run afoul of and the "conservative" wing's focus on original intent (which Scalia instilled in them over 30 years of time on the bench) would have them moving right alongside the "liberal" wing because the Founder's "original intent" with those lines and the historical basis behind them, are abundantly clear.
If non-citizens who are not in the USA lack standing to bring up the case while citizens lack standing as it doesn't apply to them, then SCOTUS would in practice let the law stand. I imagine standing would be found eg for a citizen who wanted a green card or visa for a relative or spouse.[/QUOTE]
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No, you are incorrect. There are "legal differences" between citizens and non-citizens. You can identify those differences by identifying those laws that are specifically about congress's legislative authority vis-Ã*-vis the rights of citizens.
Correct, however a blanket ban on Muslim tourists probably would be unconstitutional, as would a proposal to selectively patrol neighbourhoods with predominantly Muslim populations based on nothing more than the fact that Muslims live there.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The police are the good guys when they are enforcing the laws you like or you see them as protecting you from the bogeymen of the moment you happen to be seeing in the shadows. What you aren't recognizing, (or are being dishonest about) is that as the worm turns that same police presence might not be so appealing to you if they were going after Christians who home school their children, vocally support anti-abortion policies, or are members of political parties or ideologies outside the mainstream.Rather an apples to oranges comparison, though I imagine most Christian neighborhoods wouldn't mind. Generally speaking the police are the good guys.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-31-2016 at 04:06 PM.
Laws I like... like laws against murder, rape, theft, assault and such? I admit not every police officer is on the side of the angels but generally speaking law abiding citizens don't have a problem with police. (Outside of traffic tickets and such).
So, let's theoretically say that there was a study that showed that children raised in Evangelical Christian households were 1.5 times more likely to become school shooters, and they were 3 times more likely if they were also home schooled. Would you support increased patrols around and police scrutiny of these households? Do you honestly believe that these actions would not have a chilling effect on those communities? Do you think it would do anything to prevent school shootings?
Middle and upper class whites don't typically have problems with police if they're law-abiding. And in various communities some other subgroups are fine. Other groups are not so lucky.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't think it would have a chilling effect though I doubt it would do much to prevent school shootings.
Nothing like being treated as a second-class citizen to make you want to be a law-abiding citizen.
Hope is the denial of reality
Free protective detail sounds like a good deal to me.
But it's not a protective detail for them. It seeks to treat them as the people others need to be protected against, even if they haven't done anything wrong, based solely on which of three closely-related religions they follow. You might as well be claiming that inmates should be glad of their prison-guard "protective detail" despite a certain penchant for abuse by those guards. Abuse which, similar to police abuse, does not confine itself to those who are misbehaving.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If you ask most law abiding citizens (those who have never murdered, raped, stole, embezzled, rioted, etc) they would overwhelmingly appreciate more police presence. Ultimately you and I both know that someone being 'Muslim' will never be the ONLY consideration when looking at having police officers patrol an area.
Of course it won't be the only consideration. The fact that they're Muslim and are driving a car will be the consideration because that means they might be a car-bomber. Or being Muslim and "loitering suspiciously" by waiting for the crossing-signal to come up, which might be an indication they're scoping the location to leave a bomb later.
http://www.newsweek.com/perils-drivi...7417?piano_t=1
To provide one example speaking exactly counter to the belief you insist on. I could provide more. I could fill the page with them. It won't matter because you are completely unable to see that your perspective is one born of privilege not held by all law-abiding citizens and one which is not and will not be reality for anyone who is actually targeted by police the way you now want Muslims to be targeted.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 04-01-2016 at 05:14 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Interesting though that the people who are pushing for the 'protection of religion' are the same who are in favor of a frontal assault on a religion.
Congratulations America
Black and Latino people are far far more likely to be subjected to unwarranted stop-and-frisk procedures and the like by cops. The vast majority of these people are not guilty of committing any crime. At the very least, this wastes their time and makes them feel like shit. Not uncommonly, it results in more severe consequences even though charges may not be filed. Your bizarre notion that law-abiding citizens love having cops around applies mostly to white Americans and is based on ignorance and lack of insight into the lives of people who are not like you. It would be nice if American cops were so awesome that their mere presence weren't a significant nuisance (at best) to non-white Americans, but that is not the case.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No. The #1 question I get at work is why do we have a police presence. Police make people, even law abiding people, uncomfortable. An accusation from an officer is an instant up hill battle that could take months and a life savings to defend against. Not all cops are bad, but the bad ones are too commonly shielded by the rest. That creates a lot of distrust in the community. A police presence also suggests that there is something amiss, and that comes with a devastating stigma for communities. We had to move our officer's desk away from ours so that people would be more likely to approach us with their questions.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-01-2016 at 12:40 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
One of my old high school buddies who is white always has problems with police. Why? Because he really, really dislikes them. (Shocker he's a liberal). If you act like an ass you get treated like it. I know, blah, blah anecdotal evidence, but I really do think a lot of the issue isn't police racism but civilian non-cooperation and attitude. I've been pulled over a few times in my life and every interaction has been cordial even when I did get a ticket. People often bring it on themselves. The vast majority of America is not racist and I have a hard time believing there would be a bigger % of racists among the police force than in the general population.
Your thoughts are wrong.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote