RunRyder RC
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 4027 views Post Reply
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › I've changed my mind about torture
06-16-2009 05:07 PM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
Its really quite simple Ron. You can pick and choose, duck and bob or do whatever you like but the statement is what it is.
Its really quite simple OzarkCopterBum. You can pick and choose, duck and bob or do whatever you like but the statement is what it is.
Why do I not find it surprising that you think you can parse the words of some of the greatest legal minds in US history...
Why do I not find it surprising that you think you can parse the words of some of the greatest legal minds in US history...
I think your ego is getting the better of you here.
The best you can do is lame insults again?
Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
And it is also clear you didn't read the other info I included.

You can keep trying to twist the words, but scholars do not agree with you.... Just like you thought the Constitution and Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants while having never actually read them
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-16-2009 05:18 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
And it is also clear you didn't read the other info I included.
Because the other info does not have any bearing whatsoever.
None, zip, nada and nothing, totally unrelated.

You must have some neck to hold up that swelled head of yours.

What the framers of the Constitution said.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...tion.table.html

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EDIT
Just like you thought the Constitution and Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants
Under your pal Bush: Apparently not.
Under each and every US President before or since: Yes.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-16-2009 07:47 PM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
Because the other info does not have any bearing whatsoever.
None, zip, nada and nothing, totally unrelated.
Uh, it was info ABOUT the very Amendment you are quoting. How is that not relevant?!?!?!?!?!?

So let me get this right.... I quote legal opinion about the very Amendment we are talking about that proves you wrong.... and you want to claim it is unrelated?!?!?!?!?!
You must have some neck to hold up that swelled head of yours.
Oh look more childish insults! Two things:

1. These just make you look pathetic.
2. I bet you would never be so brave in person.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
You really are losing here. You are really showing you do not know how to comprehend the written word.
Under your pal Bush: Apparently not.
Under each and every US President before or since: Yes.
This from a guy that claimed to know what the document said.... But much later admitted he had never actually read it

Again you show the best you can do is misunderstand the written word and make childish insults.

You are going to have to do much better than that or you are going to bore me.

Why don't you start with reading this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/fourte...es-constitution
With the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment (ratified 1865), the Confederate states sought readmission to the Union and to Congress. Under Article I, section 2 of the Constitution, a slave had been counted as three‐fifths of a person for purposes of representation. Because of the abolition of slavery, Southern states expected a substantial increase in their representation in the House of Representatives. The Union, having won the war, feared it might lose the peace.

Reconstruction

In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach, to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore), many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of citizens (See Citizenship).

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2 reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15

Early Interpretation

The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's effect came in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the right to travel to and from the nation's capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority's narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas of state law (See Federalism).

Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment's framers, the Supreme Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state‐mandated racial segregation of railway cars did not violate the amendment's Equal Protection Clause (See Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court's decisions sanctioning state‐imposed segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of women to practice law or to vote (See Gender).

Although the Court first embraced a narrow reading of the amendment, it gradually expanded its protection of corporate and property interests. In 1886 the Court declared that a corporation was a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.). By 1897 it had begun reading the amendment as protecting freedom of contract, finding in Allgeyer v. Louisiana that a state statute restricting out‐of‐state insurance companies violated due process. In Lochner v. New York (1905), it held that a law limiting bankers to a sixty‐hour week violated the liberty of contract secured by the amendment's Due Process Clause.

Liberty Protections

After the constitutional crisis of 1937 (See Court‐Packing Plan), the Court repudiated its decisions striking down economic regulation. But while the amendment shrank as a protection of economic interests, it grew as a protection of other liberty interests. Much of this modern growth has resulted from extension of the Bill of Rights to the states. Since World War II, the Equal Protection Clause has emerged from obscurity. Under it, the Court has subjected racial discrimination to increasingly strict (usually fatal) scrutiny. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court found that segregated education denied minority schoolchildren the equal protection of the laws.

In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Court ruled that malapportioned state legislative districts also violated the Equal Protection Clause (See Reapportionment Cases). Other discrimination, such as that against aliens, was also subjected to strict judicial scrutiny and struck down (See Alienage and Naturalization). While state legislation restricting fundamental rights is subject to strict judicial scrutiny, economic regulation is usually measured by a more relaxed test that merely requires the court to find some rational purpose for the classification, which it usually does. Discrimination based on sex or illegitimacy has been scrutinized less strictly than discrimination based on race, but more strictly than purely economic regulation.

By a broader reading of what constituted state action, the Court has reached a wide range of action once considered private and therefore outside the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Court outlawed judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in housing (See Housing Discrimination). In United States v. *Guest (1966), six justices in dicta indicated that congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment could reach racially motivated private violence.

Another major area of expansion of the Fourteenth Amendment was in the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. As early as 1908, in Twining v. New Jersey, the Court suggested that some Bill of Rights guarantees might limit the states through the Due Process Clause. In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Court began to apply guarantees of speech, press, assembly, religion, and counsel to the states. The guarantees applied to the states were those the Court considered essential to ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937). A majority of the Court thought that many rights in the Bill of Rights—trial by jury and the privilege against self‐incrimination, for example—did not meet that test. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights accelerated under the Warren Court. By 1969 most Bill of Rights guarantees had been incorporated as limits on state power.

In addition to applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Court found that other fundamental rights, although not specifically set out in the Constitution, were entitled to protection under the Due Process Clause. These included a right to privacy that embraced the right of married couples to use birth‐control devices (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) and the right of women to obtain an abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973). The abortion decision has been subjected to severe political attack (). Recently, the Court has questioned the rationale of the privacy decisions. In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court held that the right to privacy did not protect consenting adults from prosecution for homosexual conduct under state sodomy laws (See Homosexuality). The decision criticized prior privacy cases as having “little or no textual support in the constitutional language” and suggested that they were of questionable legitimacy (p. 191).

By 1968 the Warren Court's decisions, particularly in areas of criminal procedure, provoked political criticism. President Richard Nixon's appointees to the Court, followed by those of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, have espoused a narrower view of guarantees of liberty, particularly as they affect the rights of the accused. So the Fourteenth Amendment remains, as it has been through most of its history, a center of controversy, and it continues both to mirror and to shape changes in American society.
Try reading it twice and find ONE reference that supports your position.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-16-2009 08:19 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
What the framers of the Constitution said.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...tion.table.html

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are attempting to have a spartan debate where the one that shouts the longest and loudest wins.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-16-2009 08:40 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Honestly Ron, are you going to go through the entire constitution and highlight the word citizen where ever you find it?

All you are doing is pointing out the definition of citizen and its changes because of slavery.

EDIT

And more to the point where in it does it say that we can do whatever we want, to whoever we want?

Where does it say that we can disregard it and make up laws as needed to deal with foreign nationals?

Where in history, besides your pal Bush of course, have we ever treated foreign nationals charged with crimes in any other manner than we would have treated a citizen?
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 02:53 AM  11 years ago
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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

This part defines WHO is subject to this amendment. The next part tells you want the state can/can't do to the aforementioned parties.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person (All persons born or naturalized in the United States) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty simple Bum, there's no trick language, or semantics going on on there.
Ron's Heliproz South
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 03:47 AM  11 years ago
CWALDO123

rrApprentice

Germantown , Tn - Shelby

MyPosts All Forum Topic
THANKS GUYS !!!!! Now you have done gone and made Ozark mad and now he is calling OBAMA
BTY This photo was from a sharp reporter at MSNBC

SO Thanks
Hirobo Evo 50 ,Jr9303 ((( Are Those Things Hard To Fly ?? Nah !! Snicker )))
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 02:49 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
So John for every right granted to a citizen by the Constitution they define a citizen or just on this one? Could you point out another instance where citizen is defined before a right was granted? Like the single most important office in our system and who is qualified?

As you are close to the border you should hear about things like this everyday.

When a mexican national goes to court is he subject to a different interpretation of the law than an American citizen? And whats he doing in that court to begin with, according to your interpretation?

For instance an American smuggles drugs into the country he is caught and prosecuted according to US law. A Mexican smuggles drugs into the country and he is determined to be a non US citizen they can execute him on the spot with no trial? Why were the border guards prosecuted for shooting a Mexican national that they believed was smuggling drugs?

This happens every day in your state and the mexican nationals that are caught go to our courts, are subject to the same laws and penalties and serve their sentences in our prisons. Why is that?

I really would like to see any instance, besides the Bush cases, where a foreign national was legally treated any different than a US citizen.

EDIT
Another point too John. If the authors of the Constitution went to the trouble to define the word "citizen" then why did they not use it when describing the protections?
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 02:53 PM  11 years ago
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Ozark, will we see you at this funfly ???

http://runryder.com/t506868p1/
I think about the hereafter. I go somewhere to get something, then wonder what I'm here after ?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 02:56 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Waldo do you have anything intelligent to add or just more of your constant lap dog yapping?Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 02:59 PM  11 years ago
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Who is Waldo ??I think about the hereafter. I go somewhere to get something, then wonder what I'm here after ?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 03:00 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Ozark, will we see you at this funfly ???
No, I haven't been to any funfly's this year at all. My favorite was rained out and all the others have been too far with the economy the way it is.
Should be a good one though, I hope they make it a regular event.

EDIT

Just realized that its this weekend and I'm bound for Key Largo tomorrow for the next week. Shame too as several friends will be there.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 11:02 PM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
You are attempting to have a spartan debate where the one that shouts the longest and loudest wins.
No, I am trying to get you to really understand a subject you claim to know, but clearly do not.

The Amendment starts with a description of who is covered and then goes into what is covered. I have brought that data forward with references time and time again, both here and in regard to the GITMO situation before. And you just refuse to accept the simple fact that your personal interpretation is not correct and is not supported in anyway.
Honestly Ron, are you going to go through the entire constitution and highlight the word citizen where ever you find it?
It is clear you are not even reading the data I present, or you do not know the Constitution at all. The data I have presented is legal opinion OF the Constitution, not the Constitution itself in most cases. This just goes to show you are not paying attention, or you don't really know the contents of the Constitution.
All you are doing is pointing out the definition of citizen and its changes because of slavery.
Which is the ENTIRE point of that Amendment. Your argument does not apply, yet you hold tight to it.
And more to the point where in it does it say that we can do whatever we want, to whoever we want?

Where does it say that we can disregard it and make up laws as needed to deal with foreign nationals?
Where does it say we can't?
Where in history, besides your pal Bush of course, have we ever treated foreign nationals charged with crimes in any other manner than we would have treated a citizen?
This just shows you have zero knowledge of history.
I'm bound for Key Largo
If you are spending any time in the FLL/MIA area, drop me a PM.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-17-2009 11:31 PM  11 years ago
JohnLund

rrNovice

Corpus Christi, TX

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Like I already said...

"It's pretty simple Bum, there's no trick language, or semantics going on on there."

If you can't understand it, that's not our fault.
Ron's Heliproz South
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
06-18-2009 02:22 AM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
So John for every right granted to a citizen by the Constitution they define a citizen or just on this one?
Good question! It is spelled out in *this* case since the 14th is an extension of the adoption of Amendment XIII to counter the State laws that were passed to try and still prevent Blacks from having the rights granted under the 13th.
Could you point out another instance where citizen is defined before a right was granted?
Well just look at the 15th. The 13th got rid of slavery... Then they had to pass the 14th to actually show that it applied to Blacks. If your argument was valid, then the 15th would not have been needed since citizens already had the right to vote. Then Amendment 19 gives the right to Women....

Why would they have to specifically state Women in the 19th and Blacks the 15th?

So, there clearly is a precedent
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-09-2009 06:05 PM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
Still waiting on this OzarkCopterBum:

Well just look at the 15th. The 13th got rid of slavery... Then they had to pass the 14th to actually show that it applied to Blacks. If your argument was valid, then the 15th would not have been needed since citizens already had the right to vote. Then Amendment 19 gives the right to Women....

Why would they have to specifically state Women in the 19th and Blacks the 15th?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-09-2009 08:42 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I can answer this in two simple words.

Wong Wing

Edit

Just to be clear this is what you said.
Except it was written to govern people who were citizens of the US... Other than that????

To start we can begin at... Well the beginning:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-09-2009 10:14 PM  11 years ago
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OzarkCopterBum
I can answer this in two simple words.

Wong Wing
It does not look like you can.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
07-09-2009 11:49 PM  11 years ago
OzarkCopterBum

rrApprentice

Arkansas Ozarks

MyPosts All Forum Topic
It does not look like you can.
I kinda figured you'd say that.

Wong Wing was a foreign national that the state of Michigan tried to imprison without trial in 1896. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment as written, granted him the protection of the Constitution, most importantly Due Process and Equal Protection.

Another earlier case would be Yick Wo in 1886, another foreign national that was also denied rights. The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment and decided in favor of Yick Wo and granted him the protection of the Constitution, resulting in a landmark ruling that has been the deciding factor in literally HUNDREDS of cases dealing with foreign nationals since that time.

You have a Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise?

They still name schools after Yick Wo it was so important.

The Supreme Courts 1886 and 1896 interpretation of the 14th Amendment stands to this day. It is what it is.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)


Linda Bosniak, Professor of Law, Rutgers University
Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
07-10-2009 02:17 AM  11 years ago
1stPlace

rrApprentice

Ohio USA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
^^^ Home Run for the liberal from the Ozarks!Helicopters are cool!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 4027 views Post Reply
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › I've changed my mind about torture
Print TOPIC

 7  Topic Subscribe

Friday, January 22 - 3:49 am - Copyright © 2000-2021 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online