Lost. Hard. Can't admit it. Too closed. In repeat denial.

It's pathetic, is what it is. It's pathetic.

Radar, How dare you make loopholes in the Constitution to twist it into what you want it to say? How dare you try to attempt to bring vagueness to the Constitution when it was clearly written "of" and not "the"?

Your feeble attempts to twist the Constitution are laughable. Your pathetic struggle to argue the definition of the word "of" was as sad as watching a fish flopping around in a net he can't escape from. You can't escape from the truth that the U.S. Government has no constitutional authority to govern immigration and that the Constitution protects the rights of ALL people who are within the borders of the United States including tourists, immigrants, and citizens. All of them are entitled to due process, all have freedom of speech protected by the government, all are equal under the law to any citizen born in America. The only difference is that only citizens may vote to change the laws or those enforcing them.

no more diversions radar - the gig is up, the band has left and the bar is closed.
Have a great nite.

Lemme say for the record; I think you are a very patriotic guy, just misguided. That is nothing more than my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

Take it easy man. No hard feelings.

I live in Taiwan.
I am in Taiwan.
I am American.
I am from America.
I am a US national, a citizen.
I am OF America.

A naturalized immigrant would be 'of' America - would be american. A long-term immigrant citizen of another country - 'of' another country - would be IN America, not of it.

You can't win this semantics argument. Argue something you actually have any kind of decent foundation to build your argument on.

It's nice to be able to "agree to disagree" without it getting too ugly.

Oh, it got ugly enough. :)

:shock: nah - it never got that ugly or too personal. A well heated debate.
At least we now have closure .....:bolt:

Now here's the fun part, in case you thought it wasn't fun enough already:

We're all wrong -- and I knew this going into this last flurry. In fact I was planning to advance the first seven words to make the whole point when you did for me, c-man. But here's the third act:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

"We the People" -- always intended to reinforce the idea that the government is by the people, for the people. Never intended to make a broad statement about who they indicated.

That was the original intent.

Yet here we sit, running two totally different "obvious" interpretations and arguing over which of our wrong two takes on it are "correct".

You can see why we wound up with a system of courts and justice through case law. It's quite clear, through this thread, that an "obvious" interpretation is not obvious at all; that Radar has, as he always does, substituted HIS wrong interpretation as "obvious".

After all this, it's a clear example that somebody needs to have the ultimate say, and gosh just maybe it should be somebody who has actually studied the case law for years instead of a self-anointed expert who doesn't know or care about the actual, complete meanings of the first seven words of his most prized document.

What a shit-stirrer you are UT! - I'm gonna have to sleep on that one -I gott a get to bed.

Oh and this next part is interesting too;
Greatest document ever? Well hey maybe, but not intended to be ideal in the sense Radar thinks of it. Closer to perfect is all it intended to be, and probably because perfect is unachievable in a world populated by us imperfect humans.

We the people = the common man according to your quotation. Who is more common than the people living inside America?

I haven't substituted a wrong interpretation or a correct interpretation. I don't interpret at all. I stated the meaning of the words in their original context. The meaning of "We the people" refers to all of the people in the United States....the common man.

And case law is irrelevant when it comes to Constitutional discussions. Why would someone require years of studying irrelevant case law to discuss the words that are plainly written in the Constitution?

I do know and care about the true, correct, actual, and original meanings of the words in the Constitution and demand that they be taken in their original context. This is what I've been discussing. Nothing I've said is out of line with what the founders discussed when making the Constitution or with the words in the Constitution.

I've backed up everything I've said.

I'll agree with this statement. The Constitution was made to be MORE perfect than the articles of the confederation, specifically they wanted to include the ability for the government to create taxes & tariffs since it couldn't under the AOC.

This is also why the founders created the amendment process so when times change and people feel the government should have a power that has not yet been enumerated, they could add it to the Constitution. For instance they could amend it to grant Constitutional authority over immigration to the federal government.

In fact, I'll even go so far as to say the Constitution is not a perfect document. There are many changes I would make to it to strengthen the language and close any attempts to make loopholes from the original intent of the founders for instance those who mention the word militias in the 2nd amendment and suggest this means our individual right to keep and bear arms is somehow limited solely to members of militias.