53 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

So you wish to blame your US Constitution from being used AGAINST your US Constitution in a way YOU find it a misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

 

It is in the very nature of laws and regulations that they hold both a "spirit" and a "letter", either not always coinciding with eachother or the current prevelant  desire of the nation itself.

 

I sense disagreement from your side, no malice from the "progressive side".

[Rand0m her0]

 

Lys, you know very well that RH just wants 1 example, just 1.

The ACLU. It's a conglomerate of Progressive lawyers assembled for the sole purpose of using the US Constitution as a weapon against itself. One of those Progressive lawyers made it all the way to the highest court, dispensing her own ideals, with her very own interpretations, and condemning us all with her poisonous opinions. Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

 

Lets see: ACLU cases.

 

Jennings v. Rodriguez

 

Which is a case regarding:

 

"Whether it violates the Constitution and the immigration laws to subject immigrants in deportation proceedings to long-term detention without individualized bond hearings."

 

The current ruling in the Ninth Circuit is that the government is not allowed to detain someone for period of time exceeding 6 months without giving them a bond hearing. Not doing so violates the 4th through 8th amendments, all of which prohibit the US government from engaging in arbitrary detainment.   

 

 

Benisek v. Lamone

 

Which has to do with if the redistricting of maryland's congressional map by the democrats overly favours the democrats and if by doing so they've violated the 1st amendment. To quote the ACLU:

Locking up the political process for the purpose of disabling competition among partisan viewpoints is at odds with the proper role of government in administering elections. It is inconsistent with democratic values and constitutional precedent holding that government must function as a neutral referee in administering elections. 

 

 

DOE V. MATTIS 

 

Which is another arbitrary detention case, specifically if the US military is allowed to hold and detain an american citizen while overseas without trial or due process. 

 

 

Xi v. Haugen

 

On if the US government (under the obama admin) violated Xiaoxing Xi's civil rights during it's now abandoned investigation into him, specifically in regard to the FBI's use of warrantless surveillance. 

 

 

Stone v. Trump

 

Whether or not the trump admins ban on transgender persons in the US military violate the equation protection clause of the constitution, particularly following the Defense Department's own determination that there is no basis for refusing to allow transgender persons to serve 

 

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

 

Whether or not the latest incarnation of the travel ban, by specifically  targeting out religious groups  (ie muslims) violates the equal protection clause, as well as the first amendment prohibition of government establishment of religion and the 5th amendment  requirement for equal protection under the law. 

 

 

 

 

So, where are they undermining the US constitution here Lys? Or is undermining the constitution just code for "v. Trump"

 

I guess the shots they took at  and are still taking at the obama admin are also just ""progressive"" plots right? 

[Lysistrata]

I guess you don't see any benefit to the cause, or advancement in the Progressive agenda, by clogging our courts with frivolous lawsuits, or confusing the public confidence in the US Constitution. I would prefer they leave it alone, or man up and get it on the ballot.

[Rand0m her0]

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps? 

[Lysistrata]

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps?

Sure. I know nothing about this case, but Doe vs. Mattis sounds like John Doe vs. The Secretary of Defense. In other words, it's based on a "hypothetical anyone" who may run into a hypothetical situation, and receive a hypothetical outcome, of an undetermined scenario. The very definition of "frivolous" in my book. If an American Citizen runs afoul of the U.S. Military in a foreign country... which sounds like a matter of National Security to me... I would expect them to be captured or killed. The courts can sort it out back home. Easy.

[Rand0m her0]

 

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps?

Sure. I know nothing about this case, but Doe vs. Mattis sounds like John Doe vs. The Secretary of Defense. In other words, it's based on a "hypothetical anyone" who may run into a hypothetical situation, and receive a hypothetical outcome, of an undetermined scenario. The very definition of "frivolous" in my book. If an American Citizen runs afoul of the U.S. Military in a foreign country... which sounds like a matter of National Security to me... I would expect them to be captured or killed. The courts can sort it out back home. Easy.

 

 

 

So you know *nothing* about the case, but you're going to declare it frivolous. That's a brave move.

 

Have some context. 

 

So bit of information you don't seem to understand. In order to launch a suit in the USA, it requires standing. The short of this being that it must be launched by a person or organization or on behalf of such who has been actively harmed. Your proposed hypothetical would be thrown out instantly. 

 

 

Your correct on John Doe. t's John Doe because the US military has ordered public records redacted. The short and uncontested fact is that the US military captured an American citizen in Syria in september of 2017. They have decided that this person was engaged as a combatant for ISIS, and have detained them in Iraq for the last 8 months without charge, trial, or access to legal council. After the ACLU filed for a writ of habeas corpus, it took till january for the US military to accede to the court order for contact with legal council, which was only allowed via videoconference. There is no particular reason to believe attorney–client privilege was preserved in this process. 

 

 

You would I imagine, expect this person to have been returned to the USA to be charged and tried, and given the full benefit of every single protection in the US constitution including access to legal council. Assuming the charge is accurate and founded, they'd then get to spend a significant period of time in prison.  Instead the US military has fought, and is still fighting against something as utterly basic as a writ of habeas corpus. Most recently the courts needed to hand down an order preventing the US military from transferring this person into another country in order to "remove them from US custody", in what is an  specuatarly fuckheaded attempt to do an end run around the Constitution.  

[Lysistrata]

The short and uncontested fact is that the US military captured an American citizen in Syria in september of 2017. They have decided that this person was engaged as a combatant for ISIS

Oh okay... that clears things up a bit. They should have shot him for treason rather than costing US taxpayers more. End of story.

[Rand0m her0]

uh huh. So you think the US military should be allowed to detain any american citizen overseas, produce no information about if they are an enemy combatant and then shoot them without benefit of legal counsel or trial. 

 

But the ""progressives"" are attacking the constitution. 

 

Unless you've got something a lot better than that lys, I think i've made my point. 

[Lysistrata]

I believe he lost his citizenship, and his Constitutional rights, when he left and took up arms against the USA. His previous citizenship status is not a benefit after capture by US Military... it's one more good reason to end it. War is expensive business... costs a lot and takes lives. Obviously he's part of the reason we're forced to be there, and there are consequences for that. I'm not a lawyer, or responsible for enforcing law, so you can't really expect me to have any sympathy for terrorists or traitors. I do have my opinion.

[Rand0m her0]

I believe he lost his citizenship, and his Constitutional rights, when he left and took up arms against the USA.

 

 

Wrong and wrong. 

 

One: Citizenship in the USA is borderline impossible to revoke and can not be done without legal process. There are a very very limited number of cases where the constitution allows for the revocation of citizenship  and almost all of them have to do with fraud (bascily, if you lie to get citizenship in the first place). They also literally cannot revoke the citizenship of Natural-born citizens. Literally forbidden. If the US government can revoke citizenship at all, let alone without due, it could at will, remove any and all rights granted to you under the constitution. 

 

Two: The constitution has two different types of phrasing. The first details rights granted to citizens. The second details things the US government can or cannot do period. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is a solid example of both:

 

 

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.

 

The red part applies to citizens of the united states. The green part outright forbids the government from taking that action period. For example the state can prevent non citizens from voting because that's not a right non citizens have (duh), but cannot randomly arrest a non citizen. 

 

Pretty much all of the bill of rights uses the latter language.  The second and the tenth are about the only ones that don't. 

 

For example:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 

 

I do have my opinion.

 

And your opinion is contrary to about two centuries of established understanding of the constitution, and is in direct opposition to some of the oldest and most fundamental sections of it.

Which is funny coming from a guy so concerned about the US constitution being disregarded. 

[Lysistrata]

Wrong and wrong.

A bullet is faster, cheaper, and much more efficient than the ACLU, and everything else you wasted your time with up there. What is lacking is a new Constitutional Amendment addressing the "Things you can do to lose your Citizenship, your Constitutional Rights, or your Life". It appears you have given me a new mission in life. Thank you very much.

[Rand0m her0]

There's a reason for every word, and an entire nation ratified it long before we arrived. It would serve you well to learn those reasons, then at least you would understand why they exist.

 

Welp that didn't last very long...

 

 

cause there's no chance there was a reason the constitution was drafted in such a way to prevent the government from declaring any citizen an undesirable and removing the protection of the constitution at whim and with no regard for due process. 

 

But you know, whatever. You've demonstrated zero idea of what the ACLU does, were willing to declare their actions frivolous without even doing a cursory amount of research and were perfectly happy to present your willful ignorance of such as if it was some sort of achievement. Now  your perfectly willing to throw out sections dating back to the founding of american  and written by those great and wise thinkers who you spent three posts venerating purely to fit your political goals while complaining about others attacking the constitution with the next breath.

 

 

My point's made. We're done here. 

[Lysistrata]

Now your perfectly willing to throw out sections dating back to the founding of american and written by those great and wise thinkers who ​executed traitors by firing squad

There... had to fix that for you. I already told you that you won't get sympathy from me for terrorists and traitors... you have to stand on that soapbox all by yourself. Totally frivolous! We are done here

[Rand0m her0]

 

Now your perfectly willing to throw out sections dating back to the founding of american and written by those great and wise thinkers who ​executed traitors by firing squad

There... had to fix that for you. I already told you that you won't get sympathy from me for terrorists and traitors... you have to stand on that soapbox all by yourself. Totally frivolous! We are done here

 

 

After convicting them of such and the benefit of due process. Because they had respect for limited government and the rule of law.