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

[Jarod]

^ Huh? I would say it's a requirement.

We got em talking crazy mad circles now, Huh!

 

[CFM]

You are simply wrong on two levels...

The rule would be Unconstitutional AND

It does apply to them, it applies to all people.

I have just shown over the last page or so examples of where our laws DO apply to "them."

The U.S. Constitution does not apply to all people. You haven't shown anything but that you're a stupid fucking piece of shit if that's what you believe.

Are you one of those open border dumbasses?

 

[CFM]

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?

Since an illegal wasn't born here or naturalized, hence the illegal part, the only thing that applies to them is to get the hell out of MY country.

 

[CFM]

We got em talking crazy mad circles now, Huh!

Someone like you that claims people who don't live here and who aren't citizens have Constitutional rights means you've circled yourself up to the point that your head is up your ass so far you can lick the back of your own teeth.

 

[Jarod]

Since an illegal wasn't born here or naturalized, hence the illegal part, the only thing that applies to them is to get the hell out of MY country.

So, you don't think ALL PERSONS means ALL PERSONS, just some people. I see.

Ok... were done here.

 

[CFM]

So, you don't think ALL PERSONS means ALL PERSONS, just some people. I see.

Ok... were done here.

It says all persons BORN or NATURALIZED. It doesn't say all person period. There is a disclaimer The capitalized words proves it doesn't mean all persons in general since illegals weren't born here and aren't naturalized. That's why they're called illegals.

If you say someone illegally here should stay based on the 14th amendment, you're a fool.

 

[J Craft]

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...

You stepped into a discussion begun by sty. He asserted that if you are a non citizen who is not in the US, that you cannot be indicted by the US government.

 

[Konono]

So, its okay to violate the Constitution if its temporary?

I don't see how this violates the constitution. He is not proposing banning them from practicing their religion, nor denying anyone in this country their freedom of religion.

 

[CFM]

You stepped into a discussion begun by sty. He asserted that if you are a non citizen who is not in the US, that you cannot be indicted by the US government.

STY is the dumbass who believes procedures used to determine whether or not someone should have a driver's license is tyranny by the government. His view is that it's no one's place to make that determination but that we should wait until someone who isn't capable of driving causes a wreck and hold them accountable then. In other words, he's willing to let an innocent person potentially die rather than expect someone to prove their qualifications. I wonder if he would pick a doctor or someone off the street that is willing to treat him if he had a medical issue.

 

[Jarod]

It says all persons BORN or NATURALIZED. It doesn't say all person period. There is a disclaimer The capitalized words proves it doesn't mean all persons in general since illegals weren't born here and aren't naturalized. That's why they're called illegals.

If you say someone illegally here should stay based on the 14th amendment, you're a fool.

An anchor baby is a person BORN in the United States. Right? That baby is constitutionally a citizen.

 

[Jarod]

I don't see how this violates the constitution. He is not proposing banning them from practicing their religion, nor denying anyone in this country their freedom of religion.

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.

 

[Konono]

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.

They can't practice their religion in their own countries? Is he stopping any American Muslim from practicing their religion?

Quite honestly it is a stupid idea, however, I don't think it violates the constitution. If congress signs off on it, I'm pretty sure there is nothing SCOTUS could do about it. They have plenary control over immigration.

 

[Jarod]

They can't practice their religion in their own countries? Is he stopping any American Muslim from practicing their religion?

Quite honestly it is a stupid idea, however, I don't think it violates the constitution. If congress signs off on it, I'm pretty sure there is nothing SCOTUS could do about it. They have plenary control over immigration.

We will have to disagree... Luckily we will never find out.

 

[CFM]

We will have to disagree... Luckily we will never find out.

Those of us with sense agree you're a stupid piece of shit. Sadly, we have found out.

 

[Konono]

We will have to disagree... Luckily we will never find out.

What do you disagree with?

And yes, luckily we will never find out because such a proposition would never pass congress. Trump is a airheaded hothead.

 

[NOVA]

You have a very poor understanding of our Constitution and the laws in which our government could make for it not limited by the Constitution.

Let's just pretend our legislature wanted to making law that said anyone living in Mexico is prohibited from criticizing president Trump. That would be unconstitutional because it prohibits free-speech for a person.

I do not know of an enumerated right to self-defense, we do however have constitutionally protected rights to bear arms.

People who have never been to the United States can break American law and be indicted.

What the United States can do is refrain from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of Religion, in Nebraska and in Cambodia!

Non-enumerated rights do exist. Never said they don't.

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.

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.

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.

You are simply wrong on two levels...

The rule would be Unconstitutional AND

It does apply to them, it applies to all people.

I have just shown over the last page or so examples of where our laws DO apply to "them."

"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...

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?

So, you don't think ALL PERSONS means ALL PERSONS, just some people. I see.

Ok... were done here.

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.

This thread should be saved for posterity.....Jarod's insanity is almost on par with some desh posts.......

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You have a very poor understanding of our Constitution and the laws in which our government could make for it not limited by the Constitution.

Let's just pretend our legislature wanted to making law that said anyone living in Mexico is prohibited from criticizing president Trump. That would be unconstitutional because it prohibits free-speech for a person.

Urban is the most asinine logic

 

[USFREEDOM911]

False, they would be prevented from coming her based on religion, clearly religious discrimination. Pure and simple.

There are hundreds of millions of muslims who are not inclined to violence. There is no rational basis for banning the entire religion.

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.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You see, a person in Mexico does not have a Constitutional protection of due process but they are protected by the 1St Amendment vis-a-ve the American Constitution.

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??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

jarod, just stop. now you look plain dumb.

He can't help it and once he started to roll down hill, he can't find a way to apply the brakes.
We'll just have to wait until he runs out of steam or crashes into something that stops him.
Until then, we might as well enjoy his terrified screams.