Trespassing In Mo Creeks And Rivers

[Guest P. owensby]

You are the one who brought your forefathers into the equation.

Call me a "birther."

Can you provide proof positive that your forefathers came to this country legally?

Can you provide proof positive that all your forefathers served this country to deny the rights of others to enter this country?

Can you provide proof positive that you are in this country legally?

You are sick and warped my friend. Gutter tripe. If you would like to review documentaion, we can meet halfway. I'll send you my info gladly. At the same time, you do amuse me.

[Guest P. owensby]

You are the one who brought your forefathers into the equation.

Call me a "birther."

Can you provide proof positive that your forefathers came to this country legally?

Can you provide proof positive that all your forefathers served this country to deny the rights of others to enter this country?

Can you provide proof positive that you are in this country legally?

Never on even my most pissed off day or no matter how much I depised that indivituiual, would I ever question such things. What is wrong with you? Still havin' fun though...

[Guest P. owensby]

PO, I'm going to state this in as nice of terms as I can. READ THE CONSTITUTION. What noun does the 5th Amendment begin with, "person" as oppose to "citizen" like in the 14th Amendment, or in a lot of other clauses and amendments.

As for your reference to our forefathers being on your side, ask yourself who wrote the constitution. Then ask yourself whether the news journalists and radio hosts wrote or have even read the constitution or a case interpreting it, or know what the commerce clause is, or what Due Process stands for. I posted the link in the last one. Find something in that text, or case law, which gives you some authority for your stance. I believe the issue is "Whether a person, lacking the qualification as a citizen of the United States, being tried in a court of the United States, has constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment." Have fun with that.

Again, just gloss over the first point. Pick and choose what is convienent for you're side and position.

[troutfiend1985]

Again, just gloss over the first point. Pick and choose what is convienent for you're side and position.

LOL. My last comment because this is like arguing with a wall. Here's what I said broken down in simple terms. He is being tried in US Courts, for a crime committed in the US. He has rights, per the 5th Amendment because of the previous sentence. My teacher isn't a Marxist, it's funny to me that you assume a political view when the guy is an expert on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. I posted the 5th Amendment, I told you that because he is being tried in the US that he has rights protected by the Constitution. I never said anything about fixing this problem of illegal immigration, you just want to interject that.

Final point, and this is it because it's nuts that I have to explain this. Read the constitution. Read it, it should be a requirement that everyone reads this thing before they talk about it. Read the powers of the government, and the rights of the citizens. IT scares me that we throw around words such as rights and unconstitutional so freely. It also scares me when people are willing to buy what they here through mediums of communication without putting critical thought into what they say.

One more thing, what is my "side" that I'm arguing for. I have no clue what the heck you mean by this. I guess my side is "The People Who Wish To Read The Constitution as it was Written" Geez.

[Guest P. owensby]

Here's the real easy way to shoot down this theory.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That's due process boys and girls. That whole "person" thing, rather than "citizen" is used. Makes you think huh? I would imagine that retribution is important to this family, this guy is being tried for a case in which the wrong occurred in the US. Thus, I would, and apparently some old dead guys, would rather give him DP of law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And don't you think "person" as it apply's to the matter at hand is a legal citizen of this country? Do you really think they had undocumented folks in mind when this was established? I mean really? Do you really think that, you can't be serious. Do you agree with the president when he says he is a "citizen of the world", If you do, (and I'm not saying that you do) it would seem to help me understand that "person" can be anyone with any nationalality as opposed to what I think "person" means as it states and pertains to the subject at hand. I think person refers to an indivituial born here. And if you don't, that is you're right. Still have not heard no Ideas on the immigration thing.

[FishinCricket]

By the way Troutfriend, (since you are an oracle on immigration) what are you're solutions to the problem? It is real easy to pontificate on a subject but what are you're recommondations to fix the problems?

Someone will have to present a logical one, cause it's obvious that your solution would be to take all the illegals out and whack em over the head with a shovel...

What I think is even funnier is the way you get all hot over what your ancestors may or may not have done for this country... Dude, get over yourself and take your politico-philosophical sophmoric bull to politicalcrossfire.com or something... Ya crass bastard!

[KATroutman13]

And anyone who assume's that they know who or what contribution's my family has made or in you're perception not made,is off base when it comes to service to this great nation, I wouldn't make that leap. You would definetly would have a Tiger by the tail, So I would tread lightly! By the way, I would never assume anything spcically or question you're family or their merits without personally knowing otherwise. UNREAL !!!!

Even though I believe the reference was rather obvious, in context; I was using the term "forefathers" in its generic form, not a specific reference to your familial relationships, but your veiled threats are noted and I am sufficiently shaking in my boots. (Really that comment only reminded me of a lyric by the Drive-By-Truckers -"Scrap like a wildcat fights till the end; trap a wildcat and take his skin" Great band, check them out) I digress, the answer to the issue you raise has been answered time and time again: The United States Constitution applies to PERSONS, regardless of Citizenship. See parade of logic below regarding visas (people here legally).

TF,

You are correct about the San Antonio school district case, but there are several Supreme Court cases that address the person versus citizen issue in the United States Constitution and those cases clearly state that the Constitution applies to persons, regardless of whether they are here illegally or citizenship. Otherwise, we would deny fundamental rigthts to people on work visas, school visas or any other type of visa, all of which are here legally.

As to the schooling, well, with this market and the layoffs at the big firms, all I can do is wish you the best of luck, man. It's tough enough for new grads to compete with their classmates and the 800 other people flooding the major job markets and now they have to compete with people who have 4 or 5 years of experience.

[Mitch f]

Someone will have to present a logical one, cause it's obvious that your solution would be to take all the illegals out and whack em over the head with a shovel...

What I think is even funnier is the way you get all hot over what your ancestors may or may not have done for this country... Dude, get over yourself and take your politico-philosophical sophmoric bull to politicalcrossfire.com or something... Ya crass bastard!

OUCH! Down goes Frazier!

[flytyer57]

And don't you think "person" as it apply's to the matter at hand is a legal citizen of this country? Do you really think they had undocumented folks in mind when this was established? I mean really? Do you really think that, you can't be serious. Do you agree with the president when he says he is a "citizen of the world", If you do, (and I'm not saying that you do) it would seem to help me understand that "person" can be anyone with any nationalality as opposed to what I think "person" means as it states and pertains to the subject at hand. I think person refers to an indivituial born here. And if you don't, that is you're right. Still have not heard no Ideas on the immigration thing.

Think about this for one minute. An hour or more if you really have to.

When the Constitution of the United States of America was written, do you really think they had undocumented folks in mind?

The framers of the Constitution knew that they were all decendants of immigrants.

When were the US immigration laws written? Before or after the Constitution?

As for the president being a citizen of the world, I am a citizen of the State of Arkansas. I am a citizen of the United States. I am a citizen of this planet. I am a citizen of the world. If you think you are not a citizen of this world, then from where is it you are a citizen of?

[troutfiend1985]

TF,

You are correct about the San Antonio school district case, but there are several Supreme Court cases that address the person versus citizen issue in the United States Constitution and those cases clearly state that the Constitution applies to persons, regardless of whether they are here illegally or citizenship. Otherwise, we would deny fundamental rigthts to people on work visas, school visas or any other type of visa, all of which are here legally.

As to the schooling, well, with this market and the layoffs at the big firms, all I can do is wish you the best of luck, man. It's tough enough for new grads to compete with their classmates and the 800 other people flooding the major job markets and now they have to compete with people who have 4 or 5 years of experience.

KA, that's what I was saying, that the 5th Amendment applies to "legals" as well as "illegals", I thought I made that pretty clear. It's why I underlined persons and then bolded nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I'm hoping that you just misread my posts, I'm pretty up to date on the constitution, or I wouldn't be posting on it. The distinction I was making was that persons refer to everone, citizens means US Citizens. And it's obvious throught the constitution that these are used in different contexts, to refer to different rights. I.E. 14th 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."