[seereus]

FoxNews

Briefly stated a Fed Judge wants to give illegals that are crossing our borders the right to file civil suits against the Border Patrol Agents that capture them....

:screwy: :screwy: :screwy: :screwy: :screwy: :screwy:

 

[bdee]

I would imagine this ruling was based on the 14th amendment

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

Like any other criminal breaking our laws, we give them a certain amount of protection from the potential abuse of the police. I don't think we should treat them differently from any other criminal.

 

[Hack Causality]

I would imagine this ruling was based on the 14th amendment

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

Like any other criminal breaking our laws, we give them a certain amount of protection from the potential abuse of the police. I don't think we should treat them differently from any other criminal.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the constitution of the United States protects only its citizens, legal aliens, and legally recognized visitors. Invaders have no rights whatsoever.

 

[ookoshi]

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the constitution of the United States protects only its citizens, legal aliens, and legally recognized visitors. Invaders have no rights whatsoever.

Yes well, the literal text of the constitution overrides your opinion, whether you like it or not. You know, unless you're OK with a judges else's opinion of "shall not be infringed" to mean "keep it in your home only."

Either the constitution means what it says, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways just because you don't like illegals.

 

[bdee]

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the constitution of the United States protects only its citizens, legal aliens, and legally recognized visitors. Invaders have no rights whatsoever.

Let's compare:

any person within its jurisdiction

and

only its citizens, legal aliens, and legally recognized visitors

I think the text has a broader definition than you do.

Like ookoshi said, the amendment says what it says. These 'invaders' are criminals and have the right to equal protection under our laws.

If you don't like it there is a repeal process. You have to get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all states to say that people in this country should not expect equal protection under the law.

When you say invader does that mean they don't qualify under the 'any person' definition?

 

[drtybykr]

I agree, they should be afforded equal protection. Each law passed to lose any of their rights, will also erode ours.

 

[jlcnuke]

I would imagine this ruling was based on the 14th amendment

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

Like any other criminal breaking our laws, we give them a certain amount of protection from the potential abuse of the police. I don't think we should treat them differently from any other criminal.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the constitution of the United States protects only its citizens, legal aliens, and legally recognized visitors. Invaders have no rights whatsoever.

So it would be okay to run sweatshops as long as I'm using slave children here illegally? If I want to kill someone to see what it feels like I should just go kill an illegal immigrant because they have no rights? Haven't got any in a while just go rape an illegal?

That's not the country I know...

 

[EJR914]

Maybe we should just all be fighting to get rid of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment annulled State's rights and turned everyone into a National citizen, instead of everyone being a State citizen, like they were before the Civil War. State's were forced under duress by military power to accept the 14th amendment in order for them to rejoin the Union after the civil war and during Reconstruction.

Do you really think that our founding representatives would have agreed to join our state in the Union, knowing the Federal government could just subjugate and annul them?

Many people think that the 14th amendment was only for the newly freed black slaves, because that is what I was taught in high school, but the fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment was for all persons, including the whites, basically people of all races. The 14th amendment and Reconstruction were not the logical end to the Civil War. Far from it.

In fact, every time that the courts or the Supreme Court has tried to rule on the Constitutionality of Reconstruction, the courts either say that they do not have the jurisdiction to rule on the case, or Congress has made a law taking away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Here are the three cases where the Constitutionality of Reconstruction has been questioned.

Georgia Vs. Stanton: Court ruled that just because an Act of Congress would "annul and totally abolish the existing State of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court." Further stating that the matter was a political question that did not affect personal or property rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Stanton

Ex Parte McCardle: The court accepted jurisdiction under the Act of 1867 and the case was argued. Before the Court could render a judgment Congress enacted a law that repealed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Act of 1867 and prohibited from proceeding on any appeals already before it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

Ex Parte Yerger: Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Senate introduced a bill "...explicitly prohibiting the Supreme Court from considering any case which involved validity of the Reconstruction Acts, followed by another, still more radical, prohibiting the judicial review of any Act of Congress... Yerger on being turned over to the civil authorities withdrew his petition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Yerger

All this can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinGIrel ... re=related

If you can prove this man wrong, on the 15 years of research that he has done, you can be $10,000 richer. I suggest you go try it. There are nine videos in all.

 

[Marine6212]

Fine give them that right! But If they want to sue they have to put up the amount of money that they are sueing for! If they lose they Border agents get the money for making their life hell.

Marine6212

 

[bdee]

Maybe we should just all be fighting to get rid of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment annulled State's rights and turned everyone into a National citizen, instead of everyone being a State citizen, like they were before the Civil War. State's were forced under duress by military power to accept the 14th amendment in order for them to rejoin the Union after the civil war and during Reconstruction.

Do you really think that our founding representatives would have agreed to join our state in the Union, knowing the Federal government could just subjugate and annul them?

Many people think that the 14th amendment was only for the newly freed black slaves, because that is what I was taught in high school, but the fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment was for all persons, including the whites, basically people of all races. The 14th amendment and Reconstruction were not the logical end to the Civil War. Far from it.

In fact, every time that the courts or the Supreme Court has tried to rule on the Constitutionality of Reconstruction, the courts either say that they do not have the jurisdiction to rule on the case, or Congress has made a law taking away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on the case.

Here are the three cases where the Constitutionality of Reconstruction has been questioned.

Georgia Vs. Stanton: Court ruled that just because an Act of Congress would "annul and totally abolish the existing State of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court." Further stating that the matter was a political question that did not affect personal or property rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Stanton

Ex Parte McCardle: The court accepted jurisdiction under the Act of 1867 and the case was argued. Before the Court could render a judgment Congress enacted a law that repealed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Act of 1867 and prohibited from proceeding on any appeals already before it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_McCardle

Ex Parte Yerger: Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Senate introduced a bill "...explicitly prohibiting the Supreme Court from considering any case which involved validity of the Reconstruction Acts, followed by another, still more radical, prohibiting the judicial review of any Act of Congress... Yerger on being turned over to the civil authorities withdrew his petition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Yerger

All this can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinGIrel ... re=related

If you can prove this man wrong, on the 15 years of research that he has done, you can be $10,000 richer. I suggest you go try it. There are nine videos in all.

We used the 14th Amendment to apply the Heller decision in McDonald. That a state could not abridge the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens. Would you want to allow states to do that?