• 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.

Organized Protest

MadRat

MadRat

Lifer
I have to say that after several days of pondering the issues, I'm almost at the point where I'd have to support the rights of people to spontaneously walk in protest without all the red tape. Quite frankly the governments of local cities couldn't handle several thousand in spontaneous protests. What would happen if the issue sparked hundred of thousands or even millions? I know since grade school the idea of getting arrested for protesting has been pounded into our brains. I'm from the generation x group, groing to school mostly in the late seventies and eighties. And it just dawned on me the only reason I've supported the viewpoint that government should regulate protests is because we had so much propoganda on television spouting that viewpoint.

In another thread here in ATP&N we see how people in other countries largely ignore the "right" of the government to regulate protest. Hell, we had mass chaos in France over the immigration issue there. What if our local citizenry had been so emotionally attached to the same issue that they marched? I have a feeling that the undocumented immigrants are feared while the citizens are not. I have this gut feeling that our society has been using scapegoats and made examples out of too many honest people that we were caught unprepared for the day we might just want to speak out in mass.

Anyone want to chime in on these thoughts?
 
Originally posted by: venk
Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Originally posted by: venk
Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
All the Wetbacks should be removed by force
Click to expand...


:Q See you on your next account :Q
Click to expand...


Why, only liberal opinions allowed here?
Click to expand...

I think it's the racial slur that will get you in trouble.
Click to expand...

beautiful ray of sunshine is NOT a racial slur, it is a technical definition of illegal aliens that cross the Rio Grande River!

 
Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Originally posted by: venk
Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Originally posted by: venk
Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
All the Wetbacks should be removed by force
Click to expand...


:Q See you on your next account :Q
Click to expand...


Why, only liberal opinions allowed here?
Click to expand...

I think it's the racial slur that will get you in trouble.
Click to expand...

beautiful ray of sunshine is NOT a racial slur, it is a technical definition of illegal aliens that cross the Rio Grande River!
Click to expand...
Whatever... it's a derrogatory term. Don't waste your breath defending it here.
 
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
I have to say that after several days of pondering the issues, I'm almost at the point where I'd have to support the rights of people to spontaneously walk in protest without all the red tape. Quite frankly the governments of local cities couldn't handle several thousand in spontaneous protests. What would happen if the issue sparked hundred of thousands or even millions? I know since grade school the idea of getting arrested for protesting has been pounded into our brains. I'm from the generation x group, groing to school mostly in the late seventies and eighties. And it just dawned on me the only reason I've supported the viewpoint that government should regulate protests is because we had so much propoganda on television spouting that viewpoint.

In another thread here in ATP&N we see how people in other countries largely ignore the "right" of the government to regulate protest. Hell, we had mass chaos in France over the immigration issue there. What if our local citizenry had been so emotionally attached to the same issue that they marched? I have a feeling that the undocumented immigrants are feared while the citizens are not. I have this gut feeling that our society has been using scapegoats and made examples out of too many honest people that we were caught unprepared for the day we might just want to speak out in mass.

Anyone want to chime in on these thoughts?
Click to expand...

This country was attacked on 9/11/2001 and the service aged people of this country sat on their cowardly fat asses and did nothing. There was a very slight increase in inquiries at recruiting offices when there should have been lines stretching to the horizon. Is anyone really surprised at the lack of "give a sh!t" about other, less important issues.

 
Originally posted by: DickFnTracy
This country was attacked on 9/11/2001 and the service aged people of this country sat on their cowardly fat asses and did nothing. There was a very slight increase in inquiries at recruiting offices when there should have been lines stretching to the horizon.
Click to expand...
While the wake of that event was soured, it is defintiely better than what you think should have happened. If your vision became reality, we'd be in much worse shape than we already are.

Is anyone really surprised at the lack of "give a sh!t" about other, less important issues.
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe, we knew they were going after a phantom enemy, and wanted no part in it. This issue is more important in two ways: (1) it is directly about how we treat people we want to be here, and (2) the protests show how we might be able to start making change, when we know very well that a real concentrated protest would be ignored by the MSM.
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no understanding of Constitutional Law and the precedent of the Supreme Court. If it were so simple as just looking at a document we would'nt even need lawyers and judges--we would just have SOPs for everything. By the way, there is nothing inconsistent with the first amendment and the limiting of full constitutional rights to citizens. Does it say in there, "...and this includes anyone who lives on planet Earth or on any other planet."? I didn't think so.
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no understanding of Constitutional Law and the precedent of the Supreme Court. If it were so simple as just looking at a document we would'nt even need lawyers and judges--we would just have SOPs for everything. By the way, there is nothing inconsistent with the first amendment and the limiting of full constitutional rights to citizens. Does it say in there, "...and this includes anyone who lives on planet Earth or on any other planet."? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

It say the goverment can't limit the right of the people, (are wetbacks as you like to call them people?) People is a pretty clear word.

If you don't considered them people which part of the constitution gives the goverment the right to limit their right to peacefully assemble.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no understanding of Constitutional Law and the precedent of the Supreme Court. If it were so simple as just looking at a document we would'nt even need lawyers and judges--we would just have SOPs for everything. By the way, there is nothing inconsistent with the first amendment and the limiting of full constitutional rights to citizens. Does it say in there, "...and this includes anyone who lives on planet Earth or on any other planet."? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

It say the goverment can't limit the right of the people, (are wetbacks as you like to call them people?) People is a pretty clear word.

If you don't considered them people which part of the constitution gives the goverment the right to limit their right to peacefully assemble.
Click to expand...

I am not agreeing with the other guy but "the people" could be interporated to mean "citizen of the US" as in "The people of the US." When there was still slavery those rights sure as hell weren't given to the slaves, even though they were people.
 
Funny how a poetic sequence of words can suddenly lose their power when looked at under a microscope. Its almost sounds like Clinton's famous "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" comments.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no understanding of Constitutional Law and the precedent of the Supreme Court. If it were so simple as just looking at a document we would'nt even need lawyers and judges--we would just have SOPs for everything. By the way, there is nothing inconsistent with the first amendment and the limiting of full constitutional rights to citizens. Does it say in there, "...and this includes anyone who lives on planet Earth or on any other planet."? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

It say the goverment can't limit the right of the people, (are wetbacks as you like to call them people?) People is a pretty clear word.

If you don't considered them people which part of the constitution gives the goverment the right to limit their right to peacefully assemble.
Click to expand...


I like to use the term 'beautiful ray of sunshine'? Maybe you've reached the end of your rational limitations.

So, in effect what you are saying is that any "person" is covered under the Constitution? In that case, what are we going to do about all these other countries that have laws? Should we take them over and declare that their laws are no longer valid because we have this constitution (this includes the laws of Mexico)?
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: fitzov
The right to peaceful assembly is clearly given in the 1st amendment. No, I don't think illegal immigrants are protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are wrong; the Constitution applies to all persons within the boundaries of the U.S. Think about it a bit. Has anyone demonstrated in a court of law that any of the folks protesting have broken any law? The presumption of innocence is one right that even "illegal immigrants" have. The government certainly violates that right a thousand times every day in deporting folks without trial but that doesn't erase the Constitution. The claim that "illegal = no rights" is an extremely dangerous departure from the due process that protects our freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of a priori figuring-out, but of precedent in the courts. Yes, in certain cases habeas corpus applies to non-citizens (supported by Odah v. U.S.), which means they are afforded a fair trial, but that does not imply that they can vote, or petition the government, or be able to speak openly against the government that they hope to be a part of. These rights are only afforded to citizens. Otherwise, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen?
Click to expand...

You ever read the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of no law don't you understand.
Click to expand...


You obviously have no understanding of Constitutional Law and the precedent of the Supreme Court. If it were so simple as just looking at a document we would'nt even need lawyers and judges--we would just have SOPs for everything. By the way, there is nothing inconsistent with the first amendment and the limiting of full constitutional rights to citizens. Does it say in there, "...and this includes anyone who lives on planet Earth or on any other planet."? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

It say the goverment can't limit the right of the people, (are wetbacks as you like to call them people?) People is a pretty clear word.

If you don't considered them people which part of the constitution gives the goverment the right to limit their right to peacefully assemble.
Click to expand...


I like to use the term 'beautiful ray of sunshine'? Maybe you've reached the end of your rational limitations.

So, in effect what you are saying is that any "person" is covered under the Constitution? In that case, what are we going to do about all these other countries that have laws? Should we take them over and declare that their laws are no longer valid because we have this constitution (this includes the laws of Mexico)?
Click to expand...

The consititution limits what our goverment can do. It doesn't limit what other countries can do. I'm not sure how you were confused on that point. It doesn't say germany may not pass a law it says congress can pass no law. It is clear that it is talking about the US congress.
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
I have to say that after several days of pondering the issues, I'm almost at the point where I'd have to support the rights of people to spontaneously walk in protest without all the red tape. Quite frankly the governments of local cities couldn't handle several thousand in spontaneous protests. What would happen if the issue sparked hundred of thousands or even millions? I know since grade school the idea of getting arrested for protesting has been pounded into our brains. I'm from the generation x group, groing to school mostly in the late seventies and eighties. And it just dawned on me the only reason I've supported the viewpoint that government should regulate protests is because we had so much propoganda on television spouting that viewpoint.

In another thread here in ATP&N we see how people in other countries largely ignore the "right" of the government to regulate protest. Hell, we had mass chaos in France over the immigration issue there. What if our local citizenry had been so emotionally attached to the same issue that they marched? I have a feeling that the undocumented immigrants are feared while the citizens are not. I have this gut feeling that our society has been using scapegoats and made examples out of too many honest people that we were caught unprepared for the day we might just want to speak out in mass.

Anyone want to chime in on these thoughts?
Click to expand...

I would say that Tiananmen Square challeneged a lot of people's ideas about the authority of government to take control of protests. Protesting isn't a something to be 'allowed', rather you need a really good justification for shutting one down.
 
I would say any American citizen has the rights to protest how they like. The question is how many of those were illegals and should have been in jail or another country in the first place. I would also say no one illegally in our country has our rights, although the law clearly seems to be in their favor of their supposed rights.
 
Originally posted by: MadRat
I have to say that after several days of pondering the issues, I'm almost at the point where I'd have to support the rights of people to spontaneously walk in protest without all the red tape.
Click to expand...

I support less government intrusion in the lives of individuals.

Quite frankly the governments of local cities couldn't handle several thousand in spontaneous protests.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly alot of government cannot handle much of anything, that is a good thing.

What would happen if the issue sparked hundred of thousands or even millions?
Click to expand...

That would be pretty ****** amazing considering how apathetic most Americans are. Hundreds of thousands and most definately millions could overthrow the government if it came to that.

I'm from the generation x group, groing to school mostly in the late seventies and eighties. And it just dawned on me the only reason I've supported the viewpoint that government should regulate protests is because we had so much propoganda on television spouting that viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Growing up in the 80s and 90s I dont think that was ever pounded into my brain, however I can definately say that I was more naieve in my support of the government. That is not to say that I think our government here and now is terrible its just that it would be better and safer for our rights if we had less of it.

In another thread here in ATP&N we see how people in other countries largely ignore the "right" of the government to regulate protest. Hell, we had mass chaos in France over the immigration issue there.
Click to expand...

Governments do not have rights, individuals have rights. As for the "protests" in France, those were not protests those were riots, and IMO property owners should be allowed to use all force necessary to defend thier property from criminals.
 
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America'

Interesting, it does not say "We, the people of Mexico...................................."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top