• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Democrats/liberals solution for stopping radical Islam

TheGoverness said:
200.gif
Click to expand...

I just asked you stop mocking Christians and this is what you post? Wow.
 
TheGoverness said:
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?
Click to expand...

You were mocking Christians. Please, don't deny it.
 
matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent post that left the liberal posters.... speechless. LOL!
 
matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh. So the SCOTUS actually IS the final arbiter of the constitutionality of an action. Good to know.
 
Bucky said:
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.
Click to expand...

stop being so PC
 
Kobie said:
Huh. So the SCOTUS actually IS the final arbiter of the constitutionality of an action. Good to know.
Click to expand...

It may or may not be. The people have the final say about what the Constitution means, but in this case I think most Americans agreed with the Court.
 
devildavid said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I guess the Constitution isn't really worth much in your eyes. Anyone deemed a threat by big government can be whisked away in the night. No problem. Those rights and due process, which were handed down from a long history of English common law, can be dispensed with by an all powerful government that serves itself rather than the people. Better watch out for what you wish for. Don't forget, this very attitude you have was held by King George before the American Revolution. So I guess you're ok with all your rights being conditional and left to the judgement of big government, a government that was put in place to secure those very rights. Just put an asterisk on the history of English common law, the Magna Carta, and the U.S Constitution because in your view they aren't worth the paper they were written on.
 
devildavid said:
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.
Click to expand...

How would stripping citizens of their right to self defense make use safer? I would argue it would make us less safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom