- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Maybe he can't read. :shock: What about those NY schools? :lol:
Lots of stuff
First , that's not in the constitution.Bottom line: Do you accept "innocent until proven guilty" or not?
-Public school students do not have the full protection of the 1st amendment
-POWs may be held indefinitely w/o charges being brought, must less a trial
This list goes on and on...
First , that's not in the constitution.
Second, you need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be held indefinitely.
First , that's not in the constitution.
Second, you need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be held indefinitely.
They may be held for as long as the war goes on -- which -is- indefnitely, as you do not know when the war will end.Just to point out, POW's may not actually just be held into oblivion as your statement seems to indicate. (Unless you want to argue there is a perpetual state of declared war).
Yes, though irrelevant to the point.There are strict guidelines on how POW's are to be treated, and what qualifies someone for POW status within the Geneva Conventions.
I agree.I would agree with this in theory, however, for US citizens, regardless of their offense, I think they are entitled to full protection under US law.
You may take issue with it all you want -- it is still a fact.Yes that second item is what I take issue with.
No, not everyone. There are any number of people that do not enjoy the same protection of their rights under the Constitution as, say, you and I do.
Not -all- of those protections, just most. Usually.The U.S. Constitution's protections apply to any person, citizen, resident, or alien.
So you agree with me that the Condtituton doesnt cover "everybody", just certain people, depending on the circumstance.Its privileges (the right to vote and to hold office) are true only of citizens.
You may take issue with it all you want -- it is still a fact.
Not -all- of those protections, just most. Usually.
So you agree with me that the Condtituton doesnt cover "everybody", just certain people, depending on the circumstance.
POWs may be held w/o being charged and without trial with no definite limit on how long.They get all of them. If they seem not to get them, it was because they were non-applicable to the situation, which can happen to citizens as well.
It's protections do.
So is the General Welfare clause but we still get a lot of opinions on that!
POWs may be held w/o being charged and without trial with no definite limit on how long.
And so, the protections agints same obviously no not apply to -everyone-.
And so, as I said, the protection of the constitution do NOT apply to everyone, only certain people in certain situations.That's military law, also derived from the U.S. Constitution, but with different standards than those of federal law. Notions of privacy and property are also considerably different, for soldiers and for citizens, when military law is in effect (consider martial law).
And so, as I said, the protection of the constitution do NOT apply to everyone, only certain people in certain situations.
And yet, there are SO many examples where they do not.Yes and no. Constitutional protections are categorical imperatives that are meant to apply to everyone in all times....
That's half os what I said. The other half is above.However, the manner in which a protection is actuated by a government (or military) is situational.
It does when the statement in question is "everyone" or 'all people".Moreover, the POW example does not apply;
Then they do -not- enjoy the same protection as citizens - POWs NEVER have the right to habeus corpus or to a trial.they still enjoy the same protections as citizens, it just happens in the case of due process that is very low because the Chief Executive can suspend it.
9/11 families have come out against this bull**** too
Anti-war 9/11 families oppose Holder proposal to modify Miranda | Raw Story