SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: oconnellc who wrote (109903)12/26/2001 10:13:16 PM
From: saukriver  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
OT: rights of non-citizens

I didn't quite understand your post insinuating that marginmike had not read the Constitution. You also posted a link to the Constitution, perhaps to slam marginmike.

I went back and read marginmike's post to which you were replying. He said that basically he did not grok why non-citzens have any Constitutional rights. Then, you cranked up on him with your post.

What part of the Constitution says that non-citizens have rights? The SC cases have not (in the first 212 years here) extended Constitutional safeguards to non-citizens. (In fact, in Korematsu, they justified the taking of liberty away from U.S. citizens.)

Plattitudes like "Rule of Law" don't explain either the law or how you think it is applied. Please explain your position that rights of non-citizens are somehow rooted in the Constitution.

saukriver



To: oconnellc who wrote (109903)12/27/2001 12:28:20 PM
From: Noel de Leon  Respond to of 152472
 
Chris;
Talking about the rule of law is never off topic. The problem is usually that some debate participants want to interpret the rule of law to apply to particular groups. But as a priest, among others, in WWII Germany pointed out the infringement of others' rights ultimately results in the infringement of one's own rights.