• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Illegal Alien/criminal sues San Francisco for not giving him sanctuary

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ElFenix said:
The supremacy clause doesn't bind states to act or enforce. The only part of the Constitution that acts as a general binder is the 14th amendment in the incorporation doctrine.. If the supremacy clause acted as a binder we wouldn't need the incorporation doctrine at all.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So even though the Constitution explicitly binds states to treaties, not really? Note "states" is mentioned, not just the federal government.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Why do folks blame the illegal alien instead of the lawyers who took the case?
Click to expand...

I don't know maybe because the right to a trial is a constitutional right. Stupid constitution.

how about people blame businesses that hire illegals? It shouldn't be a surprise that when the economy tanked and the number of people losing their job was increasing that the numbers of illegals entering the country went down. Correlation? Nah, it's probably just stupid liberal policies or evil proggies./s
 
ivwshane said:
I don't know maybe because the right to a trial is a constitutional right. Stupid constitution.

how about people blame businesses that hire illegals? It shouldn't be a surprise that when the economy tanked and the number of people losing their job was increasing that the numbers of illegals entering the country went down. Correlation? Nah, it's probably just stupid liberal policies or evil proggies./s
Click to expand...
The constitution doesn't protect non citizens. There are way too many cases being heard that should have been dismissed out of hand. I agree there should ne stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegals.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
The constitution doesn't protect non citizens. There are way too many cases being heard that should have been dismissed out of hand. I agree there should ne stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegals.
Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong. You should read the constitution sometime. The 14th amendment might be of some interest.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
The constitution doesn't protect non citizens. There are way too many cases being heard that should have been dismissed out of hand. I agree there should ne stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegals.
Click to expand...

That's completely false. The 14th amendment specifically says "person," not "citizen"
 
ElFenix said:
That's completely false. The 14th amendment specifically says "person," not "citizen"
Click to expand...
Only a bat shit crazy lawyer would interpret the US Constitution as applying to anyone but US citizens. Most likely the same ones who tried to get me to have international students sign loyalty oaths.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Only a bat shit crazy lawyer would interpret the US Constitution as applying to anyone but US citizens. Most likely the same ones who tried to get me to have international students sign loyalty oaths.
Click to expand...

So to be clear you think non-citizens can be arrested and then improsoned or executed without trial? The Supreme Court seems to strongly disagree with you.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Only a bat shit crazy lawyer would interpret the US Constitution as applying to anyone but US citizens. Most likely the same ones who tried to get me to have international students sign loyalty oaths.
Click to expand...

Do non-citizens not have rights to speech, due process, to not incriminate oneself, etc.? Hell, non citizens can even own firearms.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Interesting. So even though the Constitution explicitly binds states to treaties, not really? Note "states" is mentioned, not just the federal government.
Click to expand...
I guess what you're asking is if the treaty power could be used to do something the Constitution prohibits (namely, forcing states to execute federal laws, thereby defeating federalism), and that may actually be an open question. There's been a couple recent cases on it in which the answer seems to be "no." But those have had interesting facts which seem to keep the question from being answered head on.
 
werepossum said:
Freakin' hilarious from the guy who spins literally everything to mean exactly what he needs at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think I've lost track of how many claims you've made about me that were comically false. Hell, even after you admit they are false you go back to saying them a few days later.

I guess that's why you're a fundamentally dishonest person. 😉
 
fskimospy said:
So to be clear you think non-citizens can be arrested and then improsoned or executed without trial? The Supreme Court seems to strongly disagree with you.
Click to expand...
If they commit a crime, they should be prosecuted by our laws. HOWEVER, they do not get to bring suit against US citizens seeking redress for damages real or imaginary.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Only a bat shit crazy lawyer would interpret the US Constitution as applying to anyone but US citizens. Most likely the same ones who tried to get me to have international students sign loyalty oaths.
Click to expand...
It's plain language. If they'd have meant citizens, they would have written citizens. They didn't. Only an illiterate chef would see the word "persons" and think they meant "citizens".
 
Last edited:
interchange said:
Do non-citizens not have rights to speech, due process, to not incriminate oneself, etc.? Hell, non citizens can even own firearms.
Click to expand...
No, they should not have the right to free speech, if arrested, they should have the right to due process and, the right to not incriminate themselves. They most certainly should not have the rigjt to own firearms.
 
Maybe the federal government shouldn't bother "helping" sanctuary cities enforce things like firearm controls, anti-terrorism, or tax laws.
 
MagnusTheBrewer said:
Because our founding fathers didn't think they'd have to spell it out for bat shit crazy lawyers.
Click to expand...
Which might be a reasonable (if stupid) argument if the word "citizen" wasn't used already in that exact same amendment.

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.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the people that drafted that amendment know the difference between person and citizen. Apparently illiterate burger flippers don't.
 
Last edited:
glenn1 said:
Maybe the federal government shouldn't bother "helping" sanctuary cities enforce things like firearm controls, anti-terrorism, or tax laws.
Click to expand...
Other than anti-terrorism stuff I don't think the feds help much with your list anyway.

"Hold these prisoners in jail for an indefinite time period or we're going to stop giving you all this military surplus and you'll end up even more in the budgetary hole"

I bet that goes over real well.
 
ElFenix said:
Which might be a reasonable (if stupid) argument if the word "citizen" wasn't used already in that exact same amendment.



Clearly, the people that drafted that amendment know the difference between person and citizen. Apparently illiterate burger flippers don't.
Click to expand...
I never knew you were an illiterate burger flipper. It seems clear to me that the persons referred to referenced the citizens previously mentioned but then, I'm not a bat shit crazy lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top