recovering

Joined

• started 48 topics
• posted 853 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by recovering

• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  Exactly humbled. That is the law.
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  The constitution and the rights defined under said constitution either apply in whole) or they don't. You can't have some rights but not others. You have them as rights if you are a citizen, you don't if you are not.
  That's simple, right?

  Wrong just so wrong Simon

  The constitution has many rights afforded only to certain groups of.people. Does this mean that the rights of the others is not protected by the rest of the constitution? No. I will give you one.of the simplest examples.

  Who has the right to be elected to the presidency of the United States? The constitution affords that right to the following...

  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

  Article In U.S. Constitution

  Does the fact that only persons 35 and over, and natural born citizens are excluded from the rest of the rights afforded the people? Of course not.
  BTW the words you used "unalienable rights. " is not found in the constitution. The declaration of independence and the constitution refer to "inalienable rights " . Furthermore the concept of unalienable rights does not apply to all the rights granted in the constitution. Please read the following to understand the topic better.

  https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/
  
• 
  510

  What Music have you Been Listening to this Last Year ? Post You tubes if you Like !

  by flipper in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wktxjuyiat4.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4c9Iyu4feg
  
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  I have never back tracked . Show me.where I have.

  Simon I have shown which portions of the constitution apply to non citizens. The SCOTUS has ruled that the only constitutional rights that are expressly prohibited from non citizens is the right to vote and the right to hold.a governmental office/job .I

  You can not defend your argument with case law ,hence your argument has no merit.
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  That should say moderated debates
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  Tell you what Simon there is a site that.allows for moderates debate . It is ranked.and the debate is.judged by the members of the site. if you are interested we could debate in that forum. Let me know if you are interested.
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  Lol I keep.presenting legal opinions and court citations . It is you who can not back up your claims with any proof. You have not showed that constitution does not apply to non citizens. All you have done is claimed that it did not. A claim is not proof.
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  Simon you just won't accept facts. Please give a court citation supporting your contention. You can not.

  Btw The constitution is what ever the U.S. courts interpret it to be.

  Here is a quote.from the faculty of one of preeminent law.schools in the U.S.

  THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW 1. ALIENS, CITIZENS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS [Vol. 25:367
  The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discrimi-natorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, how-ever, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Four-teenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people." The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."13 For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protec-tion Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality."14 The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."15 When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.16 There are strong normative reasons for the uniform exten-sion of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself ar-gued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections: [I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Con-stitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Con-stitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantageP
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  Simon you know full well that the constitution does not give non citizens the right to vote. I have never claimed it did. However I did point out that it does afford many rights to non citizens. You may not like it , but that is U.S. Law.
• 
  193

  tommy Robinson --update

  by zeb in

  1. social
  2. current

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8b_xqi_nm.

  this is self explanatory.

  please if you are in a commonwealth country write /phone /fax your local member to support tr release from his current place of imprisonment.. you may not receive any reply but do so anyway.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  recovering

  You can say what you want, no U.S. court has ruled that this is indeed the interpretation of the constitution is as you say. The courts have indeed applied the constitution to noncitizens. Here are some court rulings to consider

  Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). See also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (Murphy. J., concurring) (arguing that noncitizens are protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (holding that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 724 (1893) (observing that foreign nationals are entitled to all "the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws, in regard to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibil-ity"); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651,660 (1892) (noting that foreign nationals incarcerated here have a constitutional right to invoke habeas corpus). Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested some limitation on the rights of some foreign na-tionals in the United States in his plurality opinion in United States v. Verdugo-Ur-quidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990), in which he suggested that a Mexican citizen who had been involuntarily brought into this country for criminal prosecution was not part of "the people" eligible to invoke the Fourth Amendment. However, he was unable to gamer a majority for that view, and Justice Kennedy, whose vote was necessary to the majority in that case, expressly rejected Rehnquist's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to all persons present in the United States. !d. at 276-77 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy rested instead on the fact that the search took place beyond our borders, a factor also relied upon by Chief Justice Rehnquist. [d. at 278.