THE BANNED--- THE LIST MAY GROW..

countryclubjoe · Feb 4, 2017

Nightmare said:
Marbury v. Madison enabled judicial review of Acts, that is of laws, for constitutionality. Marbury v. Madison did not raise the Judiciary to elect among the co-equal branches of our government.

Yes indeed I agree, however the judicial power of the United States is EXTENDED to all cases arising under the constitution. Thus the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is VOID and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The ban/rule must be discharged.. The presidents ban/bans are unconstitutional and the court has the legal power to void unconstitutional bans/rules and all departments must follow the orders of the court.

My .02

since9 · Feb 7, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Yes indeed I agree, however the judicial power of the United States is EXTENDED to all cases arising under the constitution. Thus the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is VOID and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The ban/rule must be discharged.. The presidents ban/bans are unconstitutional and the court has the legal power to void unconstitutional bans/rules and all departments must follow the orders of the court.

My .02

The mudstream media, along with you (and many others) continue to get this matter just about all wrong.

Reality check.

SouthernBoy · Feb 7, 2017

JoeSparky said:
So, a permanent US Resident (green card holder) who is NOT a US Citizen but is within the US has no rights? Just where in the US Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS does it say or imply one must be a citizen to have the protections provided or guaranteed by these documents?

Please note: The preceding is a specific request for a cite from you to support your claim of law.

The first seven words of the Constitution for starters.

SouthernBoy · Feb 7, 2017

hammer6 said:
no- joe is right. everyone on US soil has constitutional rights. that's just how it works.

read the text carefully:

"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."

correct me if i'm wrong, but here's how i read it:

person born in US or naturalized = citizen of US + the state
subject to jurisdiction = under US law first, state law cannot override, but can create where law is absent federally
no state make/enforce = citizens of US
not deprive any person = anyone: citizen of US or non-citizen of US, non state-citizen of their state or citizen of their state
deny any person = anyone in their state follows the laws of that state

There was much argument and discussion over the Fourteenth Amendment and the concerns about granting citizenship to any and all who were born here, which would pretty much demand that the parents would have to stay. This was a real worry to congress at the time, as well it should have been. Hence the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This meant those who were established members of the community and were accountable as same. Those here illegally do not fit this description. The children of illegal aliens who come here and have them does not make those children automatic U.S. citizens. That would be a mockery and a very serious danger to our continuance as a sovereign nation.

F350 · Feb 8, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
You would be incorrect to make such a sweeping statement.
Even the most illegal of illegal immigrants is protected under (most of) the Constitution. At a minimum and just off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 13th Amendments.

I believe he was referring to those Moooooslums OUTSIDE of US proper wanting to come here. They have NO rights under the US constitution until their feet are on US soil.

Hay CCJ & Faals here is a web site you will find useful...

https://www.walgreens.com/search/re...76e09-8c4e-4cf5-8fdf-4e6fae7dd859&esearch=new

countryclubjoe · Feb 10, 2017

since9 said:
The mudstream media, along with you (and many others) continue to get this matter just about all wrong.

Reality check.

Great case, however will the Supreme court jurist rely thereof?

Thank you for adding additional case precedent on the subject.. We all prosper when we share knowledge and ponder said knowledge.

Regards

CCJ

countryclubjoe · Feb 10, 2017

F350 said:
I believe he was referring to those Moooooslums OUTSIDE of US proper wanting to come here. They have NO rights under the US constitution until their feet are on US soil.

Hay CCJ & Faals here is a web site you will find useful...

https://www.walgreens.com/search/re...76e09-8c4e-4cf5-8fdf-4e6fae7dd859&esearch=new

Brilliant post on the topic... Oh brilliant one, please answer my simple queries, what is the justification for denying a person their God given rights? And in your mind, does Natural laws trump the United States Constitution?..
I look forward to your brilliant reply with bated breath..

My .02

chucktwo · Feb 10, 2017

countryclubjoe said:
Folks with green cards were detained and questioned without any counsel, without due process, these were law abiding citizens same as you and I.

Because a person looks like a terrorist or talks like a terrorist does not make said person a terrorist same as if you were open carrying and some over zealous LEO decided you were about to commit a crime because you were open carrying a weapon.. Same violations in both cases..

So I ask, What is the justification for violating a law abiding citizens rights?.. Please enlightening me with your wisdom.

My .02

No, those law abiding folks were not citizens, maybe they were law abiding but by your definition they were green card holders and as such, not citizens.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

countryclubjoe · Feb 10, 2017

chucktwo said:
No, those law abiding folks were not citizens, maybe they were law abiding but by your definition they were green card holders and as such, not citizens.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If they are on our soil they are entitled to all the legal remedies afforded under our Constitution..

The Patriot Act does not apply in this case..

Also they immigrants do in fact have Natural Rights and civil rights which must be considered..

My .02

CCJ

WalkingWolf · Feb 10, 2017

The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over non US citizens outside of the US. NONE!

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 10, 2017

WalkingWolf said:
The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over non US citizens outside of the US. NONE!

Does the USA have jurisdiction over a foreign national crossing the fence at a military installation leased by the USA from a foreign nation, say an Inuit climbing over the fence at Kadena AFB in Okinawa?

since9 · Feb 11, 2017

WalkingWolf said:
The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over non US citizens outside of the US. NONE!

Oh, I could give you several examples where this statement holds no water, including foreigners in war zones over which the U.S. and coalition forces have authority.

The previously-given example of a foreign national hopping the fence of a U.S. overseas base is another.

Taking possession of an extradited foreign criminal on foreign soil is a third.

solus · Feb 11, 2017

since9 said:
Oh, I could give you several examples where this statement holds no water, including foreigners in war zones over which the U.S. and coalition forces have authority.

The previously-given example of a foreign national hopping the fence of a U.S. overseas base is another.

Taking possession of an extradited foreign criminal on foreign soil is a third.

sorry, we have war zones at the moment? could you point out which one congress has declared?

oh and please do not forget your mention of coalition ~ normally individuals of the country to whom those citizens belong.

hopping the fence...foreign nationals are temporarily contained and then are handed over to the local constabulary...you know that...
(what occurs when someone violates the sovereign soil of a foreign embassy in this country ~ temporary detainment then handed over to some Law Enforcement agency!)

you use the term extradited ~ Extradition is the official process whereby one country transfers a suspected or convicted criminal to another country. Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by treaties.

ipse

WalkingWolf · Feb 11, 2017

Some friends of mine got into some trouble for extraditing foreign nationals in another country. We are only authorized by the constitution to extradite those who have committed crimes on our soil, and fled. Or hold criminals for extradition who have fled to the US. This all has to fall within treaties, and jurisdiction.

Again, nothing in the constitution gives the US to grant rights to non citizens outside of US jurisdiction. In fact many times human rights are legally ignored by US troops occupying other countries. Such as entering homes without warrant, or probable cause, holding people without probably cause for interrogation. AFAIK detainees are NOT read Miranda rights before questioning. GITMO being on Cuban soil allowed detainees to be held without due process.

Fallschirjmäger · Feb 11, 2017

solus said:
hopping the fence...foreign nationals are temporarily contained and then are handed over to the local constabulary...you know that...
(what occurs when someone violates the sovereign soil of a foreign embassy in this country ~ temporary detainment then handed over to some Law Enforcement agency!)

Actually, what I know is that 'handing someone over to the local constabulary' is a matter of politeness and not something required by the Status of Forces Agreement (The only one I'm even vaguely familiar with is our SOFA with Japan. 'Hopping the fence' surrounding an area under the control of the United States would be a security violation and is covered under Article XVII, 2(a) and (c).)

solus · Feb 11, 2017

Fallschirmjäger said:
Actually, what I know is that 'handing someone over to the local constabulary' is a matter of politeness and not something required by the Status of Forces Agreement (The only one I'm even vaguely familiar with is our SOFA with Japan. 'Hopping the fence' surrounding an area under the control of the United States would be a security violation and is covered under Article XVII, 2(a) and (c).)

my limited working knowledge of several SOFAs, arranged by State & DoD, follow the same general flow...caught, possibly integrated, then returned to the local constabulary, unless those fence hopping intruding foreign nationals stumble on certain restricted areas, where they might not survive their foray into that area ~ then same result...returned to their local constabulary but in body bags.

ipse

THE BANNED--- THE LIST MAY GROW..

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

SouthernBoy

Regular Member

F350

Regular Member

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

chucktwo

New member

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

since9

Campaign Veteran

solus

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Fallschirjmäger

Active member

solus

Regular Member