Drug Wars tooooo close to home!

[TheMercenary]

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity.

Not really. Most people interpret the constitution correctly. Retarded people, like merc, on the other hand, say that the constitution says what they want it to say, regardless of reality.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?
...

Conservative brain washing/damage.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how...

But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.
...

Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Only if he wears his Burka.

It's about time you came out of the closet. Although getting it in the butt by a guy who wears a burka is a really kinky fetish.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But it does give them rights. Hey, didn't you already post that it doesn't give them rights? Which is it, moron?

Limited.

Let me get this straight. If a Canadian citizen is in the United States, s/he can be arrested merely if s/he criticizes the governent? This person has no right to free speech?

When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

According to you, illegal immigrants could be, since they have no constitutional rights. You've lost this one in a big way, moron. I suggest you go back under the rock you came from.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

According to you, illegal immigrants could be, since they have no constitutional rights. You've lost this one in a big way, moron. I suggest you go back under the rock you came from.

...When did they start to arrest people for criticizing the government in the US?

[Cloud]

and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Cloud

and meanwhile, I'm just sitting on my porch watching The Most Dangerous City on Earth . . . from a distance (and frowning at thread drift)

I know,

Before I read your post I was thinking maybe they could make their own constitutional issues thread.

It is a very important current event happening and we have to listen to people argue the constitution. I mean one dig or two ok but hogging the whole subject with one upmanship is annoying.

lol @ hogging. Yes I really talk like a tard. :P

[TheMercenary]

Bottom line, no one is getting arrested in the US for criticizing the gobberment.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bottom line, no one is getting arrested in the US for criticizing the gobberment.

Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Because the constitution gives that right to EVERYBODY, whether they are citizens or not. Case closed, thank you for that proof, I accept your apology.

So you still fail to answer the question.

Why do you support Human Trafficing of people across our borders?

[classicman]

Well perhaps this will help to get back on track. . .

The crux of opponents' arguments is that only the federal government has the authority to regulate immigration.

"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Wait ... what? Every state has its own laws now.

Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis and an immigration law professor, said such a lawsuit would have a very good chance of success. He said the state law gets into legal trouble by giving local law enforcement officers the authority to enforce immigration laws.

"States can't give them that power," Johnson said. "The federal government could if it wanted to, but it hasn't."

However, Gerald Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, said Arizona could make a compelling legal argument that it has overlapping authority to protect its residents.

Johnson said opponents could also argue that the law could violate their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because it gives police officers broad authority to determine who should be questioned.

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the Arizona legislation, said he anticipated legal challenges and carefully drafted the language. He said the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law.

...or not.
Link

[Cloud]

20 people were gunned down in the streets in Juarez yesterday. Some are calling it "Black Wednesday."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14980973

[kerosene]

That sounds frightful, Cloud. I am sorry you have to be so close to that.

[Griff]

Be safe Cloud.