Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
YOu don't have to be in the US to commit crimes IN the US.....using your limited logic means we had no right to kill OBL....take that up with Pres. Obama....
Inalienable rights, natural rights, God given rights, rights given by our creator, etc..
You;ll have to take that up with the Founding Fathers and the US Supreme court.....
I'm not into your game playing....
Why does my logic limit the right to kill OBL? I never claimed foreign nationals had due process rights.
So, you admit our laws apply to actions taken outside the United States, we can make certain things Criminal even if they are not done in the United States? Even if the participants have never been in the United States.
No, I said not being physically in the US does not absolve anyone from crime committed in the US.....I think OBL was a satisfactory example....Obama had him killed and hes had
other killed with drones....take your concerns up with the guy you helped put in office.....I happen to support the Presidents actions in this....
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yeah, the guy who surrendered to US forces in panama, thereby placing himself in US jurisdiction and went on trial for crimes that he had connection with in florida. I don't see how this relates to indicting someone not in the united states
yes, another person who found himself delivered to US personnel and placed on trial in the united states. still not seeing your correlation.
Explain to me what OBL has to do with this, I never said foreign nationals have due process rights.
But you are ignoring the facts that I have listed several people indicted for crimes who have never been to the Untied States, and some for crimes that did not occur inside the United States.
Noriega did not commit his crimes in the United States, how does surrendering to US forces change that.
Are you saying we can make laws that have effect on those acting outside the Untied States? Cuz that was my point.
How they ended up in the United States or didn't end up in the United States is not relevant.
People, who we will never be able to bring to justice are breaking US law, and some of those people are being arrested or brought to the Untied States. Some are not. Many are indicted in the United States.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I think this is the first thread on religion started by a liberal that didn't involve the First Amendment's establishment clause lol.
And it involves Muslims. Who'd a thunk it.
And it involves Muslims. Who'd a thunk it.
Tell us what Noriega has to do with it....Isn't drug running in the US a crime that occurs in the US....have we no right to consider an American airliner US property....
your making a fool of yourself.....
If you never said foreign nationals have due process rights, just what the fuck is your beef ?
If we bring them here for trial, they actually get due process rights by virtue of being in the US......
Now you're getting boring, more so than usual...
If they are in the United States they have Due Process rights. 5th Amendment due process... a trial. The 14th limits its due process to those within its jurisdiction.
I said people can be indicted for crimes for actions committed outside the United States, you idiots disagreed.
Our Government is not allowed to make laws that violate the Constitution simply by virtue that those targeted would be outside the United States.
It would be Unconstitutional to make a law that made it illegal to speak ill of President Trump in Mexico.
If they're outside the U.S. and are of foreign citizenship, they don't have Constitutional protections. You can't violate something that doesn't apply to them.
christiefan915
Catalyst
"God-given rights" is a meme guaranteed to shut down the conversation because who's going to go against God? It's one of those phrases like "abortion is murder."
Can't you justify your desire to own guns without dragging God into it?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where does it say, Congress shall make no law, respecting the establishment of religion within the United States...
Where does it say, Congress shall make no law, respecting the establishment of religion within the United States...
Now lets look at the 5th...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -
What does NO PERSON mean to you? Does that sound like only Americans? Does that sound like only people within the United States jurisdiction?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -
What does NO PERSON mean to you? Does that sound like only Americans? Does that sound like only people within the United States jurisdiction?
christiefan915
Catalyst
^ Huh? I would say it's a requirement.
Trump should look at the FIRST sentence of the 14th regarding anchor babies.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Is he going to argue to the Supreme Court that ALL PERSONS excludes those here illegally or those who came here with the intent of having an anchor baby?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Is he going to argue to the Supreme Court that ALL PERSONS excludes those here illegally or those who came here with the intent of having an anchor baby?