Dazed And Confused
"Dazed And Confused"
Monk-Eye said:
Macinslosh said:
I cited four Supreme Court cases which directly contradict your idiotic statement that Equal Protection is afforded to citizens only.
That is blatantly false and absolutely stupid.
Really? So, you didn't write a nice, long, lame bit about how I could legally murder an illegal immigrant because they are not, in your view, granted Equal Protection? You didn't say to my question, "So, yes, be very ware"? Would you like me to post the link to the post in which you said this, or, will you admit that you're now trying to save face?
Verily, I am trying to figure out how you could draw the moronic conclusion (without yourself actually being a moron), as indicated directly above, that I stated only citizens are entitled to equal protection, based on my assertion (of the strictest interpretation) that non-citizens, which are illegally present, are not under US jurisdiction and therefore not entitled to equal protection.
I never said contrary arguments do not exist. They're just, well, the minority and have no constitutional foundation whatsoever. That is apparent to anyone with even a slight understanding of Constitutional Law, of which you have none.
Opinions which you do not agree with are judicial activism, and opinions you agree with are constitutional, that is classic idiocy.
Who the hell was arguing inalienable rights? Equal Protection is what I was arguing, and you damn well know it. You just can't refute my arguments because, well, your logic has not found its way into "mainstream consideration."
You are running away again like a coward.
You quoted the unalienable (endowed by creator) words of the preamble as the source of "natural rights" (conventional definition is faulty) which you promptly extended to anything you deemed a person.
My proposition stipulated that the laws of the institution are based on positive law, not "natural law" (conventional definition is faulty), wherefore the laws are drafted in the initial contexts for citizens at the exclusion of all else.
Moreover, I expounded that equal protection cannot abate, and must be compliant with, the requirements incumbent upon a citizen to receive rights, most notably, the specific requirement of birth. (off topic)
Permit this preamble comic assay - (all
MEN - literally unincluding females?) :lol:
It's "buffoonery," not "bafoonery." It's "dementia," not "dimentia." So, about your brilliance...
Does this trump your first rung of stupidity cited in this post?