- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 28,575
- Reaction score
- 6,362
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I just asked you stop mocking Christians and this is what you post? Wow.
Oh my God. Absolute bull****.
Bucky sat in here personally attacking me, calling me a child and insulting me because I'm a woman, and you actually have the audacity to say he was being "kind, polite, and sincere"?
What thread are you reading?
You were mocking Christians. Please, don't deny it.
I think you missed more than an asterisk. A government action that disadvantages certain persons on the basis of their race, national origin, or alienage will be unconstitutional unless the government can show the action is necessary for a compelling government interest.
There is no more compelling government interest than national security--it is any national government's "job number one." In Hirabayashi, the Supreme Court, although it did not at that time formally apply the "strict scrutiny" standard I stated above, held that the government's relocation and detention of certain persons solely because of their Japanese ethnicity did not violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. And the Court upheld the government's actions again in Korematsu.
These decisions refute the assertion that the U.S. government would necessarily violate due process by interning persons solely on the basis of their ethnicity, if the President had good reasons to believe that a substantial number of these people posed a serious threat to our national security. Whether you or anyone else agrees with the decisions is irrelevant.
This is an excellent post that left the liberal posters.... speechless. LOL!
I think you missed more than an asterisk. A government action that disadvantages certain persons on the basis of their race, national origin, or alienage will be unconstitutional unless the government can show the action is necessary for a compelling government interest.
There is no more compelling government interest than national security--it is any national government's "job number one." In Hirabayashi, the Supreme Court, although it did not at that time formally apply the "strict scrutiny" standard I stated above, held that the government's relocation and detention of certain persons solely because of their Japanese ethnicity did not violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process. And the Court upheld the government's actions again in Korematsu.
These decisions refute the assertion that the U.S. government would necessarily violate due process by interning persons solely on the basis of their ethnicity, if the President had good reasons to believe that a substantial number of these people posed a serious threat to our national security. Whether you or anyone else agrees with the decisions is irrelevant.
I just asked you stop mocking Christians and this is what you post? Wow.
TG,
I am going to request kindly not to mock Christians. I continually seeing you use mocking Christians terms and using the lords name in vain. Please stop that is it is highly offensive towards the Christian posters on this forum.
This is an excellent post that left the liberal posters.... speechless. LOL!
Huh. So the SCOTUS actually IS the final arbiter of the constitutionality of an action. Good to know.
Good reasons are not enough to strip me or anyone of Constitutional rights. What if the President has good reasons to confiscate our guns in the name of national security? And I mean all our guns, including criminals. Every door will be kicked down until we have collected every weapon from every citizen. That would sure help our national security. You want to open the door to strip one right away, I can justify stipping another one away.
Almost none of our constitutional rights is absolute. Even the most basic rights like due process have tended to be narrowed and limited during every war the U.S. has been in. That history was a personal interest of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote quite a lot about it. And that's as it should be--as the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Good reasons are not enough to strip me or anyone of Constitutional rights. What if the President has good reasons to confiscate our guns in the name of national security? And I mean all our guns, including criminals. Every door will be kicked down until we have collected every weapon from every citizen. That would sure help our national security. You want to open the door to strip one right away, I can justify stipping another one away.