Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

[TheMercenary]

The 1886 Supreme Court case Yick Wo v. Hopkins is often viewed as a precursor of the racial civil rights era represented by Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, the case was primarily about economic rights. In a new article, Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts About Yick Wo,* forthcoming in the Illinois Law Review, Professor Gabriel Chin argues that Yick Wo "is not a race case at all." I argue that it is a "race case" because the Court's use of the Fourteenth Amendment to vindicate economic rights necessarily entangled economic rights with race - in an ultimately pernicious way. While issues of "race" in American law tend to focus on nonwhiteness, the "race" of the Chinese plaintiffs in Yick Wo was legally significant in its nonblackness. The Reconstruction Court had previously refused to apply the Amendment to whites or to economic rights in The Slaughter-House Cases. But Yick Wo both revived the literal meaning of the Amendment's phrase "all persons" and applied it to economic rights. It thus ushered in a two-pronged civil rights counter-revolution symbolized by Lochner v. New York's protection of economic "substantive due process" for white persons and corporations and Plessy v. Ferguson's denial of civil rights protection to blacks. The counter-revolution also turned against the nonblack nonwhites who had helped create it, allowing the exclusion of Asians from immigration and naturalization, state laws prohibiting Asians from owning land, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

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]

Well-known Douglas-area rancher is found slain

A longtime rancher was killed on his Douglas-area property over the weekend, and neighbors worried that his homicide was connected to increasing border-related crime in the area.

The Cochise County Sheriff's Office offered little information into the late-Saturday shooting death of 58-year-old Robert Krentz, whose family began the Krentz Ranch more than 100 years ago.

Krentz's body was found on his land, which is about 35 miles northeast of Douglas, just before midnight Saturday, said Carol Capas, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office.

The Sheriff's Office, aided by the U.S. Border Patrol, had no suspects Sunday and continued to follow leads, Capas said. She declined to comment on reports from neighbors and border activists that Krentz's death was related to smuggling in the area.

Area residents said Krentz had no enemies, and they could think of no motive for his death other than the possibility it was related to what they called the growing level of crime in the area related to illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Tom Tancredo, a former U.S. representative from Colorado, was visiting ranchers near Douglas to discuss border issues when he heard of Krentz's death.

Tancredo said he and Krentz were friends and that he was "a mild-mannered guy" who was known for providing illegal immigrants with food and water.

Tancredo and Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said Krentz phoned a family member Saturday afternoon to say he was out near his watering hole, providing one or more illegal immigrants with aid.

That's the last his family heard from him, Simcox and Tancredo said.

"He looked the other way so often," Tancredo said. "It's so ironic that he, of all people, got murdered."

If Krentz's killing was caused by an illegal immigrant or a drug smuggler, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria said, it would be a first for the area, to his recollection.

"We haven't seen any instances of illegal immigrants or drug smugglers attacking U.S. citizens," Candelaria said.

Others who live nearby were unwilling to disclose their names when they spoke about the homicide Sunday because, they said, they were afraid of possible repercussions. A person at the Krentz home also declined to comment.

In a 1999 PBS interview, Robert Krentz and his wife, Susan, said illegal immigrants once stole property from their ranch, but that incident didn't stop him from aiding other trespassers.

"You know, we've personally been broke in once. And they took about $700 worth of stuff. And you know, if they come in and ask for water, I'll still give them water. I, you know, that's just my nature," Krentz was quoted as saying in written transcripts of the interview.

The longtime rancher's homicide already has caught U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' attention.

Sometime this week, the Arizona Democrat will travel to Douglas for a briefing on the homicide, said Giffords' spokesman, C.J. Karamargin.

"Rob Krentz was a pillar of the Cochise County ranching community," Giffords said in a press release. "He will be greatly missed."

The Krentz family's cattle ranch was inducted into the Arizona Farming and Ranching Hall of Fame in 2008. The family started the ranch in 1907.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/bord...0c7bc913c.html

[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.

[TheMercenary]

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity.

Not really. Most people interpret the constitution correctly. Retarded people, like merc, on the other hand, say that the constitution says what they want it to say, regardless of reality.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?
...

Conservative brain washing/damage.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how...

But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.
...

Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Only if he wears his Burka.

It's about time you came out of the closet. Although getting it in the butt by a guy who wears a burka is a really kinky fetish.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?

Limited.

Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?

When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

[Cloud]

and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)