Liberty 4 sale @ any price. Well worn. Owner has no use for same. Apply Washington DC

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Blitz79
Erm... Surveillance, DNA database...

And this effects the electoral process in what way?
I suppose if that surveilance was on people who are allowed to vote... but I'm not seeing what it has to do with democracy?

Originally posted by Blitz79
You are well established as someone who defends those in power as a means of making yourself feel powerful.. Yet you seem to be missing the point considerably? However I suppose that is the art of maintaining power is it not?

Point here or is this a troll?

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Those are supreme court interpretations, as to different lauguage (describing who is protected) used in different clauses of the constitiution and the amendments, particularly the bill of rights. The most commonly used words "the people" means any legal resident of the USA, unless the context requires otherwise, "Any person" means any person, "citizen" means citizen, etc. These terms and other are used in conjuction with different protections.

Originally posted by stormbind
You are far too selective in your quotes. Snipping off key words does nothing but make yourself look pig ignorant.
It does say the reason for ordaining the constitution is to improve/protect America but does not say the contents of that constitution cannot be extended to include all men.

The Constitution specifies it applies to citizens of the United States, and has been treated as such ever since. A series of laws have denied foreigners their rights, many of them latter eliminated but not by judicial process. The Constitution is specific in its breadth and reach, and is not a universal applicability. However, its been a matter of policy for the sake of pragmatism and simplicity to treat foreigners suspected of crimes as citizens. The idea here is that the war on terror makes this more difficult, and no longer pragmatic, so the process will be on hold for suspects held in conjuction to it. This isn't an elimination of the Constitution, but an elimination of the concept that people who come here from around the world have no intention of causing harm. The betrayal of our trust, not the betrayal of our principles is the important conjuncture here.

Allow me to quote the 11th Amendment (in its entirety):
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of anotehr State, or by Citizens of Subjects of any foreign state"

14th Amendment, section 1:
"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."

 

[Blitz79]

Ahhh... good to see another expert in constitutional law.

I suppose people like you are going to learn the hard way what is happening to you. Call it what you want - a point or a troll - but the fact is that America is less and less a democracy. Or would you care to argue that it is?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Blitz79
I suppose people like you are going to learn the hard way what is happening to you. Call it what you want - a point or a troll - but the fact is that America is less and less a democracy. Or would you care to argue that it is?

That is a fact?

I asked you to explain to me how my right to chose my government is being infringed by the Patriot act and you respond by telling me I love authority and its a fact.

Can we have a discussion here? Provide me with an example perhaps, or a hypothetical situation how limiting the rights of non-voters affects the voting process?

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by Greadius


I asked you to explain to me how my right to chose my government is being infringed by the Patriot act and you respond by telling me I love authority and its a fact.

Can we have a discussion here? Provide me with an example perhaps, or a hypothetical situation how limiting the rights of non-voters affects the voting process?

1) I did not tell you you loved authority.

2) The 'voting process' and democracy are not the same thing.

Limiting the rights of non-voters clearly does not affect the voting process directly. However you would be pretty blind to think that the construciton of an extra-judicial police force that spies and imprisons at will does not affect democracy.

Or do you think that such groups, once started, can somehow be checked? By which process would you check them? Pieces of paper? Sacred 'constitutions'?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Blitz79
Ahhh... good to see another expert in constitutional law.

I suppose people like you are going to learn the hard way what is happening to you. Call it what you want - a point or a troll - but the fact is that America is less and less a democracy. Or would you care to argue that it is?

The Constitution, whether intensionally or not, has become almost entrenched. Effectively, American politicians deny their people the freedom to make their own rules. It's almost funny, but it's certainly not democratic

All Americans are experts in constitutional law. It is compulsory for them to complete one semester in "American Government" as part of their High School education.

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by stormbind

All Americans are experts in constitutional law.

I can't help but feel that someone who makes such a claim knows little about the complexities of the legal process.

Experts in constitutional law are anyway NOT experts in democratic theory, which is a seperate and even more complicated area.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
This isn't an elimination of the Constitution, but an elimination of the concept that people who come here from around the world have no intention of causing harm. The betrayal of our trust, not the betrayal of our principles is the important conjuncture here.

I do not know if the same applies to citizenship, but the USA allows foreignors the option of quickly buying residencial status, there is even a lottery to allow poorer people the chance.

While clearly this is biased and extremely capitalist in nature, it demonstrates that the quoted statement is hypocrytical and short-sighted.

Put simply, foreignors with money are allowed in without demonstrating any loyalty or good will. I think internal American politics are a mess and that they compromise national security.

To abolish stupid money-making policies should take presedence over introducing unreasonable and insulting laws.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Blitz79
I can't help but feel that someone who makes such a claim knows little about the complexities of the legal process.

You misunderstood, I was trying and obviously failed to express sarcasm

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by stormbind
You misunderstood, I was trying and obviously failed to express sarcasm

Ah, I see...

The thing is that some people here actually make statements like that and believe they are true. I see your point though

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Greadius
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of anotehr State, or by Citizens of Subjects of any foreign state"

Not sure about yet are getting at here. This amendment means that foreign citizen or citizens of different USA state cannot sue a USA state in federal court. They would thus be practically limited to that state's court since sovereign immunity would bar most such actions in the courts of other states.

14th Amendment, section 1:
"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."

Note amendment the use of two different protected classes in different phrases, citizens and any person., each meaning their plain meaning.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Blitz79
The 'voting process' and democracy are not the same thing.

The voting process is the official exercise of democracy. What part of democracy, then, is effected by the Patriot act?

Originally posted by Blitz79
However you would be pretty blind to think that the construciton of an extra-judicial police force that spies and imprisons at will does not affect democracy.

Maybe I misread the part of the article where this comes into play to undermine the Constitutional protections of U.S. citizens or their democratic rights?

Originally posted by Blitz79
Or do you think that such groups, once started, can somehow be checked? By which process would you check them? Pieces of paper? Sacred 'constitutions'?

Yep.

As long as they don't write their own budgets or raise their own taxes, they're accountable to someone.

Originally posted by stormbind
Effectively, American politicians deny their people the freedom to make their own rules. It's almost funny, but it's certainly not democratic

The Constitution can be changed by democratic means, including without Congressional consent.

How is the Constitution, then, undemocratic?

Originally posted by Blitz79
Experts in constitutional law are anyway NOT experts in democratic theory, which is a seperate and even more complicated area.

Would a B.S. in Political Science make me an expert in Democratic theory

Originally posted by stormbind
I do not know if the same applies to citizenship, but the USA allows foreignors the option of quickly buying residencial status, there is even a lottery to allow poorer people the chance.

Gotta limit supply since demand is out of control.

Makes you wonder why such an unfair, undemocratic, police state has so many people that want to come to it and live here

Originally posted by stormbind
While clearly this is biased and extremely capitalist in nature, it demonstrates that the quoted statement is hypocrytical and short-sighted.

I'm not a big fan of the process either, but do a step-by-step on the hyprocritical part...?

Originally posted by stormbind
Put simply, foreignors with money are allowed in without demonstrating any loyalty or good will. I think internal American politics are a mess and that they compromise national security.

Everyone has to take the same test and make the same oath (which I don't like, btw, but...)

And thanks for your comment on internal American politics. I think internal British politics are... well, I don't know anything about internal British politics because it doesn't effect me so I don't care

Originally posted by stormbind
To abolish stupid money-making policies should take presedence over introducing unreasonable and insulting laws.

So your first priority after 9/11 would have been to cut funding?

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Note amendment the use of two different protected classes in different phrases, citizens and any person., each meaning their plain meaning.

Which is why it is important as a matter of Federal policy to keep foreigners detained under the guise of the War on Terror out of Federal court, or those rights WOULD have to be extended to them.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola

Not sure about yet are getting at here. This amendment means that foreign citizen or citizens of different USA state cannot sue a USA state in federal court. They would thus be practically limited to that state's court since sovereign immunity would bar most such actions in the courts of other states.

I couldn't grasp this one

From the point of view of a non-American who feels unfairly treated by, for example, Texas... what can/cannot they do?

It could be that I do not know what a State court, Federal Court or any other American courts are. At it's lowest level... England has Criminal courts for the state prosecutions, and County courts for resolving disputes between persons(s)/organisation(s).

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
So your first priority after 9/11 would have been to cut funding?

So much to reply to, but I couldn't remember the context of most of your statements after hitting quote

No, not with the aim of cutting funding... but I would have wanted to see a review of the process of becoming a resident, especially after it was found that the criminals were residents and not tourists!

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
... it is important as a matter of Federal policy to keep foreigners detained under the guise of the War on Terror out of Federal court, or those rights WOULD have to be extended to them.

Those rights SHOULD be extended to visitors.

How would you feel if, on visiting England, we put you behind bars and denied you your right to a fair trial because you were foreign!?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
Makes you wonder why such an unfair, undemocratic, police state has so many people that want to come to it and live here

I'm not a big fan of the process either, but do a step-by-step on the hyprocritical part...?

If you think you have too many immigrants, take a look at poor little and overcrowded UK. We have a 10 year backlog

The hypocrytical part is complaining that the America's trust had been broken, when your criteria for selecting immigrants is based entirely on their financial worth.

If the rules on entry put emphasis on testing people's good will then the statement would have a case... but clearly, under the current politics, being trustworthy is not a requirement for becoming a resident.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
The voting process is the official exercise of democracy.

I dissagree. Giving the people the choice of voting on policy would be democratic, what you describe sounds more like a republic. IMHO.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by stormbind
From the point of view of a non-American who feels unfairly treated by, for example, Texas... what can/cannot they do?

He can file a civil suit against Texas in a Texas court, not in a federal court, nor (for reasons other than this 11th amendment) in an Oklahoma or any other court or a Nepal or any other country court.

 

[Elden]

Originally posted by Greadius
So you're demanding special treatment in the name of the Queen?

Good luck...


Innocent until proven guilty is written into the Constitution to protect American citizens from our government. Foreigners... not so lucky.
Sorry if you don't like it. 99.9% of the foreigners that come here don't have any problems.

The rule of thumb: stay squeaky clean.

I've never said it on these boards before, but I'd never travel to a country outside NATO (and the 'Neutral' West Europeans) & Japan without an extremely good reason or I was desperate. Those are the ONLY nations which will afford you that much. America is still better off than the other 180+ countries in the world, as our millions of foreigners living here are sure to tell you.

Laws are laws for all, not just Americans - what your basically saying is foreigners should follow your laws but NOT be protected and treated fairly by them. You are a hypocrite if you think that.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
Everyone has to take the same test and make the same oath (which I don't like, btw, but...)

I think that's to become a citizen, not a resident... but I could be wrong.

Is that the same as pledging allegiance to the flag...? I had to do that every day in the USA. I'm certainly not anti-US, but I most certainly did not have any allegiance that repulsive flag (too square; doesn't fit my personality) and hated the event.

I tried singing the British national anthem instead but it was not appreciated by the teacher

Regardless, back to the topic... you don't like the test which everyone takes. We may not agree on what the ideal policy is, but we agree that the current policy should be revised.

 

[NY Hoya]

a little perspective on freedom...

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

- Benjamin Franklin

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.

- Noam Chomsky


some of Europe's laws exposed:

It was in an interview with a literary magazine, Lire, that Houellebecq made the comments which landed him in court. He called the fundamental texts of all monotheistic religions "texts of hate" but singled out the Koran as the worst of all.

French author cleared of "hate charge"

more on Houllebecq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,794047,00.html

MRAP claims that the book, Anger and Pride, incites racial hatred against Muslims, and has begun legal proceedings against its author. In the offending passages, Fallaci remarks that the children of Allah "multiply like rats" and "spend their time with their bottoms in the air, praying five times a day."

Even more unfortunate, though, is that the group could succeed. "Racism," including so-called "hate speech," is a criminal offense in France, and according to current sensitivity standards, Fallaci's remarks may make the grade.

Under a 1972 law, individuals may be fined and imprisoned for up to a year for inciting racial hatred. Though the law also covers discrimination in employment practices and group-membership selection, most of the roughly 100 people convicted of racist offenses each year are found guilty of racial slurs or defamation.

French hate speech law

Mr Page, 61, was detained in a police cell after being interviewed about remarks made by him at a country fair at Frampton-upon-Severn, Glos, on Sept 6. . .

. . .Mr Page also told his audience that Londoners had the right to run their own events, such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrated black and gay culture. Why therefore, he asked, should country people not have the right to do what they liked in the countryside.

Mr Page said yesterday: "I urged people to go on the march and I urged that the rural minority be given the same legal protection as other minorities. All I said was that the rural minority should have the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays."

British columnist detained for "hate speech"

Sweden is about to forge ahead of Saskatchewan by passing a constitutional amendment banning all speech or materials opposing homosexuality. When it does, remarks that offend gays could bring a jail term of up to four years. Christians would not be allowed to speak out against homosexuality, even in churches.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20021014.shtml

You may despise some of these peoples' beliefs. However, any free society rests upon certain rights, foremost of which is the right to free speech/expression. Looks to me like the US isn't any worse, and is probably better than many European countries. The Patriot Act and it's successors are aimed at arresting terrorists. These are people who want to see me dead and will act upon that thought. Our freedom is still in place, regardless of what the chicken littles here will have you believe. We certainly remain as free a people as those of you in Europe.