Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"Non-Citizens" do not have the same rights as "Citizens" under our Constitution. That is the only point. They have limited Rights.

And earlier in the discussion, you said that the Constitution only applies to citizens. and the Constitution deals with American citizens.

And that is factually and legally incorrect.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And earlier in the discussion, you said that the Constitution only applies to citizens.

And that is factually and legally incorrect.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wrong.

Denying your own posts now?

You changed your argument in midstream...from the Constitution "only applies to citizens" and "only deals with citizens" to there are different rights for non-citizens and citizens.

Your first argument failed by any legal standard, so I understand why you changed in midstream.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Denying your own posts now?

You changed your argument in midstream...from the Constitution "only applies to citizens" and "only deals with citizens" to there are different rights for non-citizens and citizens.

Your first argument is wrong and I understand why you changed in midstream.

All your reference stated was that they could not deny the individual the right to run a laundry and collect funds because he happened to be Chinese. It did not, however, state that the US Constitution applies to all persons who are non-citizens. That was not a finding of the Court.

And why did you try to apply the findings of the Gitmo Combatants to the Rights under our Constitution? There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All your reference stated was that they could not deny the individual the right to run a laundry and collect funds because he happened to be Chinese. It did not, however, state that the US Constitution applies to all persons who are non-citizens. That was not a finding of the Court.

What part of the Court's finding (that is still cited as precedent) dont you understand:

“The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘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.’These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction , without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”

And why did you try to apply the findings of the Gitmo Combatants to the Rights under our Constitution? There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges.

Both are non-residents and the Court referenced substantive guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in Wo in the Gitmo case.

Thatssss all for now, Justice Merc.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Both are non-residents and the in the Gitmo case.

No where did they state that the Enemy Combatants were citzens and afforded all the Rights under our Constitution, only limited Rights.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

What part of the Court's finding (that is still cited as precedent) dont you understand...

What part of the fact do you not understand that it only deals with economic renumeration? A limited Right.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Thatssss all for now, Justice Merc.

If I were a Justice we would not have to discuss this case...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Probable cause.