You are so full of crap - How many times have YOU stated "they meant EXACTLY what they said"? If they menat "the people living in the US" they would have said that. Since they didn't specifically say "the people living in the US", then they DID NOT MEAN THAT. How thick are you?

...and an illegal one at that.

They did say that. We THE PEOPLE of the United States refers to the people in the United States. That's what it says.

Let me make it more clear for you. Before there was a United States, there were only people. They weren't citizens, they were just people living in America. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders said that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Government gets its powers from the people who are governed. Government may not have any powers that individuals do not have without government.

Since all of the people living within the borders of the United States are subject to the Constitutionally valid laws of the United States, they are "governed" by the U.S. Government. Not some people....ALL people.

The U.S. Government derives its powers from THE PEOPLE who are governed by the U.S. Government, and yes this includes non-citizens and undocumented immigrants. They are also subject to all of the laws of the United States which do not contradict the Constitution (such as immigration laws). If they commit murder, they go to jail. If they steal, they go to jail, etc.

They are absolutely part of WE THE PEOPLE.

An immigrant would surely be a "person of France living in the United States". An immigrant wouldn't describe themselves as a person of the United States. He's got you dead to rights, so to speak.

no it refers to the people OF the US not in. It is very clear. No playing with this one. If the meant "in" they would have said "in". The two words (in & of) have very different meanings. By your own admission they meant exactly what they wrote - "of "
At best, it is up for interpretation which is what we are doing now and you still lose because everything else is therefore up for interpretation as well.

You are too smart a guy to not see the reality right in front of you.

It depends on what your definition of of is.

Take a look at any dictionary and defining the word "of" is never "the"
Although we can discuss and debate it. I am wiiling to do that. That still proves the point of "interpretation"

It's not up for interpretation. It means we the people of the united states.

You keep highlighting the word "of" as though that means something special when it does not. The people who are governed by the United States are THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. This is where the government drives its powers.

Immigrants are those who live here. If a French immigrant lives in America and he travels to Brazil and someone asks where he is here from, he will say he is in Brazil FROM the United States. He is Pierre OF Idaho. Nothing needs to be interpreted and nothing is vague no matter how much you try to make it so.

It derives its powers from being elected by... the people of the United States. The citizens, the voters.

Radar, That is not even worthy of a response. You are trying to switch the argument to the derrivation of power and to governance.

I would love to debate that with you right after we finish up this one, if you please. One thing at a time.
Please agree that:
1) the writers meant exactly what they wrote
(you have already done this numerous times) and
2) "of" is not the same as "the"

Wrong. It derives its powers from the CONSENT of the governed....the permission of the people. It exercises those powers through people becoming elected.

Depends on if he is a legal or illegal immigrant.

1. The writers mean exactly what they wrote, and it's not vague, ambiguous, or in need of "interpretation".

2. The people OF the United States refers to all of the people who are governed by the United States. All of them are OF the United States because the United States derives its powers from their consent.

There is no difference in America since the Federal government isn't granted any powers over immigration by the U.S. Constitution.

So...the people elect some other people, who vote as a body passing laws on immigration. These laws are signed into effect by the President, who was also elected by these same people.

This sounds suspiciously like the system of government set up in the U.S. Constitution.

What is this three-nation nonsense. A person is of the country of origin, they can't merely show up and say they represent the new country, unless they are naturalized.

My interpretation is more reasonable than yours. It clearly means what I think it means and not what you think it means.

refers is your OPINION, nothing more - You are interpreting it that way to suit you and your point. Thats fine, I choose, as does 99% of the rest of the world that: of means of and not "the".
derriving power has NOTHING to do with this radar - stop trying to confuse the issue - STAY ON TRACK A simple sentence ends this nonsense.

"of" means "of" and "of" does not mean "the".

The only way for THE PEOPLE to grant power over immigration to the U.S. government is to amend the Constitution. Merely creating a law which contradicts the limited authority granted to the federal government does not lend any legitimacy to that law regardless of how many people want it.

Those who are governed by a government are the ones the government derives it's powers from. All who are subject to the laws of a particular nation (including non-citizens) are OF that country.

no they are "in" that country - clearly a great distinction.

and "of" does not mean "the" nor does it mean "in"

Everybody IN the country is subject to the laws. Plenty of people who would NEVER describe themselves as OF the country -- say, for example, tourists -- are also subject to the laws. You're losing this semantics argument... hard.

So...some other people, chosen by the people who have been elected by all the people, review said laws as to their "constitutionality". They find no problem with it. More then once, at different periods of time spanning a at least 150 to 175 years.

Some guy, one of the people by the way, tries to tell me that all these other people don't know shit about what they are doing, I should just listen to him, he's the only one who's right. Come to think of it, Jim Jones had the same tag line.

I am not "interpreting" anything. If a government derives its powers from the consent of those it governs, all of the people who are governed are OF that country because they have a vested interest in how they are governed. No amount of arguing over the word "of" will make you right. No matter how many attempts you make to try to make something clear into something that is "debatable", you will fail.

"We the people of the United States" refers to all OF the people governed by the United States because this is where the government derives its powers. All who are among the consenting people governed by the United States are OF the United States.

Radar - again you are changing the argument - Your original point is wrong and therefore all the nonesense you build upon that faulty foundation shall come crashing down with it.
Its been fun, but now its just getting old. I have proved my point a dozen times over and yet you still CHOOSE to believe something that clearly is not correct. Enjoy your fantasy world.

My foundation is solid and irrefutable. I've backed up everything I've said. I've proven you wrong each and every single time you have tried to do a Bill Clinton and argue over the definition of "of" and proven for any reasonable and intelligent person that the U.S. Government has absolutely zero Constitutional authority over immigration.

The only ones in a fantasy world in this thread are those who have been proven wrong by me, but who still try to claim the federal government has any authority other than the specific enumerated powers.

Oh what the fuck - - just lemme ask you this. Who the hell are you to assume what the framers of the constitiution were "referring" to? How dare you infer what they "meant" when they clearly stated something else?

Your foundation is worthless. Your foundation hasn't even stood up to the definition of the word "of". You have simply proved that you are delusional - moreso than previously thought.

How dare you look for loopholes in the Constitution to twist it into what you want it to say instead of the simple words it really says? How dare you try to attempt to bring vagueness to the Constitution when it was clearly written to strictly limit the powers of the federal government to only the specific powers enumerated? Who the fuck are you to claim that "We the people" refers to anyone other than the people governed by the United States? Who the fuck are you to claim that only citizens are protected by the Constitution when everything the founders said contradicts that?

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.

The citizens of the United States.
This is as blatantly obvious to me as your view is to you.

We the people = everyone living within the borders of the United States. It's painfully obvious that all people are born with the same rights regardless of their citizenship and that the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of EVERYONE in the United States. EVERYONE has the right to due process, to a trial by jury, to the presumption of innocence, to freedom of speech, to freedom of religion, etc. and the Constitution was made to protect those rights for EVERYONE living in America regardless of their immigration status.

NO ONLY MY BLATNTLY OBVIUS IDEAS R RITE

Radar, we agreed to disagree last night and now you are starting the same old argument again. Why? Has something radically changed with the constitution overnight?

No, I just wanted to have the last post. ;)

not gonna happen - LOL

I've worked as a Drill Sergeant. One of the questions I would ask new recruits during some down time is this: How many amendments are there to that document that you all swore to protect and defend?
I'd say 2 to 5 out of 120 guys knew the correct answer.

Another question that I asked one day to a room full of young soldiers, was: What is the birthday of the United States. Maybe it was the wording, I don't know....only 10% out of 240 of these mugs knew the answer. For a period of about 1.5 years I asked every group that came through that question, same result...10%. Most of that 10% were foreign nationals.

It has been a great, spirited discussion. I for one take very seriously my oath of enlistment. I have read the constitution, hell I swore an oath to protect and defend it. This discussion has driven me to read it again, and to look at a lot of commentary as well. Thank you.

One of the greatest things about our nation is our diversity, along with our great freedoms. It's an awesome thing that we can have discussion, and one or more of us is not locked up for voicing our opinions. However different those opinions may be. I used to have a copy of the constitution printed by the Congress, a little blue book. In the beginning of the book was a letter from the members of the Congress that ratified the constitution. The process was one of compromise. Everyone had to give something up. It is one of the great lessons of our nation.

Thank you for the discussion, and have a happy and prosperous year!

That's a really hard question. I had to look it up. (answer in white text below)

27

27.

the USA's borders are so porous, especially along the coastlines as guards are rather thinly posted. Thus its easy to enter the country by boat. Isn't such a thing to be scared of?

Robsterman, coming out of the troll slamming thread to join the rest of us. Robster!

The Constitution of The United States of America only applies to legal citizens of the US, not to illegal aliens who are basically criminals.

Ohh Noo, not again?!?!?!


Maybe we should have a cellar vote and settle it that way.

"And now for something completely different."

http://www.dvdforum.nu/images/artikl...0812/radar.jpg

What?

If the Constitution, the very basis upon which all our other laws are founded, does not apply to non citizens, what does apply? What other laws apply if our Constitution does not?