Re: Simpleton Trolls
"Simpleton Trolls"
Your proof, as you put it, is a joke.
Yes. Supreme Court decisions and statements from the Fourteenth Amendment's author are jokes; an amendment, I might add, you are trying to use as evidence for your whole "Equal Protection is granted to citizens only!"
The jist of your comical proof was a case dictating that Texas must offer a positive right of education to illegal immigrant children.
It was simply establishing that non-citizens are in fact protected by the Equal Protection clause. Let us just look at Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment just one more time:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
So the blue portion defines just what a citizen is, hence the bolded word "citizen." Now the red portion delineated just who is entitled to Equal Protection. The bolded word is of course the most important. Tell me, you can read well, is the red bolded word "citizen" or is it "person"?
If that isn't enough for you, perhaps this snip from an online Google book entitled "American Civil Liberties" will:
The Supreme Court has held that aliens or non-citizens in the United States are entitled to constitutional protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This view is consistent with the plain language of the amendments that extend protection in the relevant clauses "persons," not citizens. Even non-citizens who are undocumented are guaranteed protection by these amendments.
Now let's look at a statement by an author of the Fourteenth Amendment:
"A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
Google Book
Start a thead and defend that goofball position and see how much support you get. You should be arrested for pandering to criminals!!
I'm pretty sure most people would err on the side of the Constitution, which means you'll have no supporter except for maybe your mom.
But you do not consider that to be judicial activism; buffoonery.
As an even greater brain fart, you use that nonsense as justification against fundamental precepts of the collective institution; retarded.
Oh, you mean those "fundamental precepts" that you can't seem to find any evidence for because your logic "...has not found its way into mainstream consideration." Talk about retarded.
Nice try; you assert that illegals being entitled to education is not judicial activism and that dissenting opinions are insignificant; a directive to look up would be brief, however, in classic form, all you see is more of your own intestines.
Perhaps the plain language in the Fourteenth Amendment is the reason illegals and non-citizens, generally, are entitled to Equal Protection under the law. It says, "...nor deny any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say CITIZEN like you want it to say - it says PERSON!
Perhaps coward is not the correct term for your avoidance for a defense of inalienable rights, as it is clear that you are uneducated and ignorant, which may indicate that there is no purpose in discussing something beyond your scope of reason.
Ah, yes. So now that I've made you look like the flaming ignoramus you are, you resort to these halfassed attacks.
The bottom line is that inalienable rights have been legislated from the time our nation first raised its flag. The problem, however, was figuring out who would be considered a person thereby deserving the protection these rights granted. As your degree in Wikipedia has taught you, black people were not, at first, considered people, therefore rights were not extended to them. They are now, however.
Natural laws, as defined by convention, are meant to indicate laws for the nature of man, and the justification for the assertion of those laws is divine conscription, which is inconsistent with natural selection.
And I care about natural selection why? We don't live in caves anymore. Wait. Strike that.
Most of us don't live in caves anymore.
How is the connection from that cave, anyway?
The conventional misapplication of the terms natural laws is entirely different from the laws of nature, which is the greater meaning of the term natural laws, and natural law is morally relative.
Another failed attempt to sound intelligent. You are on a roll.
Thus, eventhough Equal Protection extended rights to persons within US jurisdiction, those persons, which are not in the US legally, are abdicated from US jurisdiction and therefore unentitled to protected rights.
Good thing every legal scholar, Supreme Court, judge, person, citizen, dog, and parasite disagrees with you.
The aforementioned rhetoric avoids the basic ineptitude of your person argument, which is that non-citizens within jurisdiction must be born in order to meet the equal requirement of citizens to be bequeathed with rights.
Yet again you make another claim you are unable to support with any evidence. I've debunked this particular claim roughly ten times now - on the other thread. Good to see you don't give up, however.
That is, your pathetic person at any stage argument is a hopeless lie.
You cannot contend and lose again.
Um, in your little mind - maybe. In reality? Nope. I've actually referenced all of my contentions and assertions. You've not referenced a solitary one. But, I'm sorry, that's because your logic "has not found its way into mainstream consideration."
Anyone with any sense understands my statements, and anyone with any sense sees through the shallow depths of your canned, empty, inept, response of denial.
And the shallow depths of the canned, empty, inept U.S. Constitution, I might add.
You seek allegiance through a popularity contest, that is the only way for you to win because your "logic" and "proof" are overwhelmed and defeated.
Um, sure. Even though I've pissed off the majority of people on this forum, I seek victory via popularity. Riiight. So, plan on actually proving all that BS you spout? Wait. My bad again. I keep forgetting that your "...logic has not found its way into mainstream consideration." Silly 'ol me.
It is all important to you that you be accepted as part of your uniform fettish. You blatantly lie that my positions are false, classic lawyer, classic fundamentalist psychosis.
You do mean "fetish," right? And I've not lied once. If you think attacking me like you have is going to draw intelligent people away from the fact that you're a wannabe lawyer who is completely ignorant of the law, then you are sorely mistaken. Your thesaurus-influenced posts do not befuddle the minds of most people, which is what you attempt with the constant usage of ten-dollar words. It might help, too, if you used them in the right context once in awhile. Just a piece of advice.
Though I honestly wonder if you lack the ability to fathom my positions.
Your positions are ridiculous. They contain not a single, solitary brick of constitutional foundation. You posting is like a horse climaxing. It's messy and the horse doesn't remember much of it afterwards.
The comic assay was that the Preamble states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." and, you reference the assertion to justify "natural rights"; :lol: yet, women did not have the right to vote; thus, it literally meant only men. :lol:
And, do not forget slavery, which according to the book of israelism, and book of qurayshism is satisfactory; so much for natural laws. :lol:
And I explained all of this above.
My assertions are beyond your ad homen; their popularity grows and, your lame attempts at reason are increasingly mocked.
Anyone who agrees with your positions must be related to you. That's the only logical conclusion one draws. Education in American cannot be THAT bad.
(I mean, I DO make fun of myself, but not for this reason)
Infractions have been awarded. Threadbans are next.
