Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Are you suggesting that a citizen of Mexico can say what ever they want, within Mexico, and due to the Constitution of the US, the Mexican Government can't do anything about what he says?? :palm:

No, I'm not saying that and unless you are a complete idiot you know that.

The Mexican government can do as it wishes.

The US government is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that would limit a Mexican persons speech.

The Mexican government does not have to follow our constitution.
 
THEN WAIT A MINUTE!!

So if a group of Christians wanted to go and exercise their religion, in.........

......let's say Syria, then they have that RIGHT and since their American citizens; if anything would THREATEN that ability, then the US would have the right to use MILITARY FORCE to ensure that their rights aren't violated. :good4u:

No, fool I did not say that. Our government is not required to protect these rights world wide, it simply is prohibited from making laws that limit them worldwide.

Just because Congress is prohibited from passing certain laws infringing on some rights does not mean that we must actively ensure those rights worldwide. Idiot!
 
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....

Apparently Jarod believes that if I shoot my neighbor, in his home, while I'm in my home, I can't be charged; because I was never in my neighbors home.
 
No, fool I did not say that. Our government is not required to protect these rights world wide, it simply is prohibited from making laws that limit them worldwide.

Just because Congress is prohibited from passing certain laws infringing on some rights does not mean that we must actively ensure those rights worldwide. Idiot!

Well, I guess Jughead is right....the US certainly is simply prohibited from doing the impossible.....

Jarod said:
The US government is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that would limit a Mexican persons speech.

Then more witless wit....Jughead believes the US Constitution(somehow) prohibits the US from passing laws that affect the rights of people in other countries.....
(I wonder what amendment that falls under)

[B said:
Jarod[/B]] 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?

Now. in this bit of insanity, Jughead thinks that OUR 5th Amendment applies to every person in the world, not just Americans or only those people within the United States jurisdiction it means everybody.........OH, the power of the US is astounding....

But when asked about Obama killing OBL, Jughead says.... "Why does my logic limit the right to kill OBL? I never claimed foreign nationals had due process rights."....so it seems that "NO PERSON" don't include OBL, just everyone else....


And we continue....
Originally Posted by [B said:
Jarod][/B] "People who have never been to the United States can break American law and be indicted."

so here it seems Jughead in under the delusion that, say, ISIS barbarians are openly carrying guns in Syria, without the benefit of US permits, thus breaking US law....
and he thinks the US can indict them.....

Then, just for fun, one more gem.....
Jarod said:
What the United States can do is refrain from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, in Nebraska and in Cambodia!

WE CAN REFRAIN....yes, I guess we can, Jughead....not only can we 'refrain' but it is utterly impossible for the US to make any law that affects the people of Cambodia....even
if wanted to......

Now don't laugh about this, Jughead is a college grad and a lawyer allowed to actually practice law....and worse of all, he votes........its no laughing matter.....
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not saying that and unless you are a complete idiot you know that.

The Mexican government can do as it wishes.

The US government is constitutionally prohibited from passing laws that would limit a Mexican persons speech.

The Mexican government does not have to follow our constitution.

But that wasn't what you implied. :D
 
No, fool I did not say that. Our government is not required to protect these rights world wide, it simply is prohibited from making laws that limit them worldwide.

Just because Congress is prohibited from passing certain laws infringing on some rights does not mean that we must actively ensure those rights worldwide. Idiot!

Who suggested that the US was even thinking of prohibiting anything, world wide?? :dunno:
 
No, fool I did not say that. Our government is not required to protect these rights world wide, it simply is prohibited from making laws that limit them worldwide.

Just because Congress is prohibited from passing certain laws infringing on some rights does not mean that we must actively ensure those rights worldwide. Idiot!

So can Congress ban immigration from an entire country?
 
An anchor baby is a person BORN in the United States. Right? That baby is constitutionally a citizen.

Not referring to the baby but the parents. Until the fiasco of a baby being given citizenship due solely to a criminal act is corrected, let the baby stay but ship the parents out. They are illegal and should be gone regardless of the consequences. Since the child is their responsibility and not that of the taxpayers, the anchor would be lifted and gone in some form or fashion sooner or later.
 
His proposal would be bending them from the free exercise of their religion.

The federal government is prohibited from making any laws that limit the free exercise of religion anywhere in the world.

If they aren't in the country, the Constitution doesn't apply to them.
 
Back
Top