Australia is the new Rhodesia

jdel77 said:
Sure it does - it says “The People”:

View attachment 347243

“The People” is never defined as only ‘Citizens’ in The Constitution, as discussed here:

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

If this was the case, then you’d have legal grounds to expel fOrEiGnErS and ImMiGrAnTs based on their political views and speech, which YOU DO NOT AS PER YOUR OWN CONSTITUTION.

Turns out an Aussie knows more about your constitution than you do 😂.

So once again…

View attachment 347246
Click to expand...

Not quite there buddy. When a person legally comes to the US; such as on a visa, those rights are applied as a courtesy to them while visiting. It's reciprocation for them following our laws while here. This courtesy only last for as long as the person is in the US. It does not protect them for punishment by their gov't for something they said/did that is illegal in their own country while in the US when they return. It would also not protect them from extradition in that same circumstance. A US citizen would have these protections. The US Constitution certainly does not extend to persons residing in other countries that are not US citizens as you're trying to imply.

Turns out that an Australian doesn't know as much as they think they do about the US Constitution.

And what's with all the upper/lower case words there? You stroking out with anger and can't type properly?

1727436843472.png
 
You have to be retarded to think "The people" referred to in the US constitution applies to anyone other than US citizens.

The same people that believe that also believe that " The People" referred to in the 2A doesn't mean the same thing as "The people" everywhere else in the document.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
Not quite there buddy. When a person legally comes to the US; such as on a visa, those rights are applied as a courtesy to them while visiting. It's reciprocation for them following our laws while here. This courtesy only last for as long as the person is in the US. It does not protect them for punishment by their gov't for something they said/did that is illegal in their own country while in the US when they return.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.

MadAsAHatter said:
It would also not protect them from extradition in that same circumstance. A US citizen would have these protections.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.
Of course a US citizen is protected by extradition as by definition extradition can only apply to non citizens.

MadAsAHatter said:
The US Constitution certainly does not extend to persons residing in other countries that are not US citizens as you're trying to imply.
Click to expand...

Again, of course.

MadAsAHatter said:
Turns out that an Australian doesn't know as much as they think they do about the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

My point is that “The People” are never defined as citizens in the US Constitution.
The multiple Constitutions of the French Revolution created some 15 years later went to great depths and details on the hoops you had to jump through and boxes which needed ticking to qualify as a citizen who could vote for representation and qualify for The Assembly. The US Constitution is far more (purposefully?) ambiguous.

MadAsAHatter said:
And what's with all the upper/lower case words there? You stroking out with anger and can't type properly?
Click to expand...

😂

Thanks for the conversation, I enjoy it.
 
Floyd Eye said:
You have to be retarded to think "The people" referred to in the US constitution applies to anyone other than US citizens.

The same people that believe that also believe that " The People" referred to in the 2A doesn't mean the same thing as "The people" everywhere else in the document.
Click to expand...

It’s all here mate.
Some Amendments infer the status of citizenship, or refer to it as a requirement.
Other Amendments do not, in order to extend rights and protections.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/700
 
jdel77 said:
It’s all here mate.
Some Amendments infer the status of citizenship, or refer to it as a requirement.
Other Amendments do not, in order to extend rights and protections.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/700
Click to expand...
In no case is it anything less than a complete stretch or absolute ignorance to assume " We the people", " The people" or any similar phrasing is intended to mean anything other than citizens. I don't care how many Muslim law professors say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
Floyd Eye said:
In no case is it anything less than a complete stretch or absolute ignorance to assume " We the people", " The people" or any similar phrasing is intended to mean anything other than citizens. I don't care how many Muslim law professors say otherwise.
Click to expand...
that's what leftists do. see things that aren't there; infer things that aren't intended; ignore things that are actually there;...
 
Floyd Eye said:
In no case is it anything less than a complete stretch or absolute ignorance to assume " We the people", " The people" or any similar phrasing is intended to mean anything other than citizens. I don't care how many Muslim law professors say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes lefties warp things. They warp the Bible too to try and justify their anything goes race to the bottom.
 
japetus said:
What is the actual difference? Is marmite less salty?
Click to expand...
It's just an English Vegemite so to speak... it has a different taste though. I stick to vegemite because that's what I'm used to and grew up with. It's not truly awful - I'm just being funny about it... but that said I don't eat it because I'm a loyal vegemite man haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top