|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 11, 2015 18:45:18 GMT
Your observation that is is "just a function of math" that the American population will eventually reach the billion-plus mark is not entirely true. That "math" is supplemented by the mere assumption that the current rate of population growth will never decline. Actually, what you said--and I quote--is that the US "is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million of [Iraq's] citizens." (Bold added) Apparently, you believe that the murder--not the mere killing, but the murder--of the Kurds by Saddam was perfectly justified. And your preference for "highly restricted" illegal immigration, over "unrestricted" illegal immigration, is very telling. I would prefer that illegal immigration--which, of course, will never be stopped to the tune of 100 percent--should be diminished to a mere trickle, as it once was. Once again, you have expressed your severe distaste for "statutory law," as if there were something essentially wrong with that. And yes, we are, indeed, "a nation of immigrants." But we are also a nation of laws. And I certainly do not support immigration at the expense of the law--"statutory" or otherwise.
If some of the Contras acted horrendously, I certainly do not support that. But I did support the Contras' pushback against the Sandanistas. Why should anyone (except a Marxist) support a Marxist government?
I'm unaware of the US ever experiencing negative population growth with the possible exception of those time periods where deseases introduced from European immigrants resulted in the massive deaths of the native population. While I don't have numbers for how many Native Americans died due to the plagues (e.g. smallpox) introduced from European immigrants I do know that 90% of the Native Hawaiian population died from those plagues.
I'm not sure where you pulled a quotation from me stating US responsibility for the deaths of 2 million innocent people but it certainly didn't relate to Iraq. It could have related to Vietnam because the US was directly responsible for preventing the internationally supervised democratic re-unification vote of Vietman in 1956 and an estimated 2 million innocent Vietnamese died during the 2nd Indo-China (Vietnam) War. In Vietnam the US was directly responsible for the deaths because the entire Vietnam War would have been avoided by a simple democratic vote of the people. Of course "responsible for" and "resulted in" are relative terms that can overlap. If I start the fire in a vacant building and a firefighter dies fighting the fire am I "responsible" for that death or did the fire I started merely "result" in that death?
When there is an armed insurrection against the lawful government then the government does have the legal authority to suppress the insurrection. When the Kurds were in armed insurrection the Iraqi government under Saddam did have the legal authority to suppress the insurrection. What the Iraqi government, under the rule of Saddam, was guilty of is using chemical weapons against the Kurds, a violation of international law (that you don't believe in), but the killing of the Kurds by other means was "acceptable" under international laws and customs of war. In short killing the Kurds was "acceptable" under international laws and customs of war but how that killing was accomplished was not.
Under the former Bush Adminstration the number of "illegal" immigrants entering the United States peaked at well over 1 million per year. Under the Obama Adminstration it's never exceeded 500,000. Statistically we're twice as effective at restricting illegal immigration today than we were under the prior adminstration.
Of interest is that many on the "right" like to reference "history" in claiming that Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower effectively used deportation that resulted in over 13 million "illegal" being deported (or leaving the US under threat of deportation) but that is a historical myth according to FactCheck.org's research.
www.factcheck.org/2010/07/hoover-truman-ike-mass-deporters/
We can also note that many of the deportation practices employed by Operation Wetback often referenced by those on the "right" under the Eisenhower were unconstitutional and cannot be employed today.
I have a "severe distaste" for statutory laws that violate the US Constitution and the rights of the person. Do you really have a problem with that?
The atrocities (acts of terrorism) committed by the Contras are well documented and the commission of these atrocities was the approved mode of operation endorsed by the CIA as leaders of the Contras later revealed.
As for your question, "Why should anyone (except a Marxist) support a Marxist government?" the answer is simple. The "Right of Self-Determination" of the people of Nicaragua. The Sandanista government was the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Do you oppose democracy?
The quote from you, as concerning the deaths of "over 2 million" people, was from paragraph two of your February 5, 2015 post in this thread. And it was, indeed, concerning Iraq. I never suggested that the US might soon experience "negative population growth." But if the rate of growth soon decreases--and if it eventually levels off--your projections may not necessarily be accurate. Actually, Saddam Hussein--when he was still alive--was charged, by an Iraqi court, with genocide in his killing of the Kurds. So it was not just about the method that he used in these murders. I do not believe--and have never claimed--that we should "deport" all illegals. I do, however, believe that we should make life very difficult for their employers: Perhaps a weeklong shutdown of the business, coupled with a fairly substantial fine, for the first offense; and a permanent shutdown of the business for any subsequent offense within, say, a five-year period. If the illegals could not obtain employment in the US, they would probably go home--and then, perhaps, attempt to gain legal American citizenship. I have "a problem" with anyone's desire to cavalierly dismiss all "staturoty laws" that he personally considers "unconstitutional," when the courts have never ruled them to be such. (And this, irrespective of any issues of "standing" that might theoretically impede their being brought before a court.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 12, 2015 13:08:39 GMT
The quote from you, as concerning the deaths of "over 2 million" people, was from paragraph two of your February 5, 2015 post in this thread. And it was, indeed, concerning Iraq. I never suggested that the US might soon experience "negative population growth." But if the rate of growth soon decreases--and if it eventually levels off--your projections may not necessarily be accurate. Actually, Saddam Hussein--when he was still alive--was charged, by an Iraqi court, with genocide in his killing of the Kurds. So it was not just about the method that he used in these murders. I do not believe--and have never claimed--that we should "deport" all illegals. I do, however, believe that we should make life very difficult for their employers: Perhaps a weeklong shutdown of the business, coupled with a fairly substantial fine, for the first offense; and a permanent shutdown of the business for any subsequent offense within, say, a five-year period. If the illegals could not obtain employment in the US, they would probably go home--and then, perhaps, attempt to gain legal American citizenship. I have "a problem" with anyone's desire to cavalierly dismiss all "staturoty laws" that he personally considers "unconstitutional," when the courts have never ruled them to be such. (And this, irrespective of any issues of "standing" that might theoretically impede their being brought before a court.)
Then I misspoke as the 2 million death toll relates to the Vietnam War and not the Iraq War.
I certainly remember the news stories about the gas attacks on the Kurds but as I recall that was related to Saddam's brother and not to Saddam himself. In any case if charges were brought against Saddam he was not convicted of those charges as he was only convicted for the deaths of 148 Shi'ites.
As you know my preference is to eliminate as much illegal immigration as possible by allowing immigration for peaceful purposes. I don't have any problem with someone immigrating to the United States to work, for education, or be with their family. If we allow immigration so that the person can work then we don't have to "punish" employers because their workers would be legal immigrants. I'm also opposed to any measures that would require an American to prove that they are legally entitled to work in the US that is also mandated if we require employers to prove that their employees are legally allowed to work in the US. An "E-Verify" type requirement doesn't apply to just immigrants but to every American citizen as well and to that I'm very much opposed. As for the current illegal immigrant problem I would take the simple course of legalizing their immigration status if they are here for peaceful purposes such as work, education, or to be with their family.
I don't cavalierly dismiss statutory law but neither do I depend solely upon Supreme Court decisions in addressing Constitutionality. For the Supreme Court to even make a decision a dispute must be established by lawsuit and even then the arguments presented before the court must also be compelling. Violations of the US Constitution can go unresolved for centuries in some cases but we must always remember that when such laws are overturned that they were always unconstitutional. For example when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that prohibitions against inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional it established that every law, going back to the founding of America, that prohibited inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional. That prohibition even violated the US Constitution before ratification of the 14th Amendment because the "right" of equal protection under the law was protected by the 9th Amendment prior to enumeration by the 14th Amendment.
As an American I have a deep belief that the founders created a mandate for following generations to continuously address all matters of the "rights of the person" through both identification these rights and in expanding the protections of them. These rights include both the natural (inalienable) rights that exist outside of government as well as the civil rights that are required because of the existance of government.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 16, 2015 18:23:17 GMT
The quote from you, as concerning the deaths of "over 2 million" people, was from paragraph two of your February 5, 2015 post in this thread. And it was, indeed, concerning Iraq. I never suggested that the US might soon experience "negative population growth." But if the rate of growth soon decreases--and if it eventually levels off--your projections may not necessarily be accurate. Actually, Saddam Hussein--when he was still alive--was charged, by an Iraqi court, with genocide in his killing of the Kurds. So it was not just about the method that he used in these murders. I do not believe--and have never claimed--that we should "deport" all illegals. I do, however, believe that we should make life very difficult for their employers: Perhaps a weeklong shutdown of the business, coupled with a fairly substantial fine, for the first offense; and a permanent shutdown of the business for any subsequent offense within, say, a five-year period. If the illegals could not obtain employment in the US, they would probably go home--and then, perhaps, attempt to gain legal American citizenship. I have "a problem" with anyone's desire to cavalierly dismiss all "staturoty laws" that he personally considers "unconstitutional," when the courts have never ruled them to be such. (And this, irrespective of any issues of "standing" that might theoretically impede their being brought before a court.)
Then I misspoke as the 2 million death toll relates to the Vietnam War and not the Iraq War.
I certainly remember the news stories about the gas attacks on the Kurds but as I recall that was related to Saddam's brother and not to Saddam himself. In any case if charges were brought against Saddam he was not convicted of those charges as he was only convicted for the deaths of 148 Shi'ites.
As you know my preference is to eliminate as much illegal immigration as possible by allowing immigration for peaceful purposes. I don't have any problem with someone immigrating to the United States to work, for education, or be with their family. If we allow immigration so that the person can work then we don't have to "punish" employers because their workers would be legal immigrants. I'm also opposed to any measures that would require an American to prove that they are legally entitled to work in the US that is also mandated if we require employers to prove that their employees are legally allowed to work in the US. An "E-Verify" type requirement doesn't apply to just immigrants but to every American citizen as well and to that I'm very much opposed. As for the current illegal immigrant problem I would take the simple course of legalizing their immigration status if they are here for peaceful purposes such as work, education, or to be with their family.
I don't cavalierly dismiss statutory law but neither do I depend solely upon Supreme Court decisions in addressing Constitutionality. For the Supreme Court to even make a decision a dispute must be established by lawsuit and even then the arguments presented before the court must also be compelling. Violations of the US Constitution can go unresolved for centuries in some cases but we must always remember that when such laws are overturned that they were always unconstitutional. For example when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that prohibitions against inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional it established that every law, going back to the founding of America, that prohibited inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional. That prohibition even violated the US Constitution before ratification of the 14th Amendment because the "right" of equal protection under the law was protected by the 9th Amendment prior to enumeration by the 14th Amendment.
As an American I have a deep belief that the founders created a mandate for following generations to continuously address all matters of the "rights of the person" through both identification these rights and in expanding the protections of them. These rights include both the natural (inalienable) rights that exist outside of government as well as the civil rights that are required because of the existance of government.
Wikipedia speaks of the trial of Saddam Hussein, as regarding the murder of the Kurds: I am now retired--and have been for 10 years now--but if I were still employed, I would have absolutely no problem with proving my citizenship through some E-Verify sort of system. As for the matter of interracial marriage (as was the subject of Loving v. Virginia, which you mentioned), I firmly believe that anyone should have the right to marry any unmarried person of the other gender, irrespective of race or ethnicity. (As I believe I have mentioned previously, race and ethnicity are simply not defining characteristics. To assert that one ought not be able to marry someone, simply because that person happens to have been born into a different race or ethnicity--even if that person is totally compatible, in every meaningful way--is simply absurd!) But I do not believe that so called "anti-miscegenation" laws--as deeply as I deplore them--were "unconstitutional" from their very inception. Rather, they were unconstitutional from the moment that the SCOTUS declared them to be unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 17, 2015 12:32:07 GMT
Wikipedia speaks of the trial of Saddam Hussein, as regarding the murder of the Kurds: I am now retired--and have been for 10 years now--but if I were still employed, I would have absolutely no problem with proving my citizenship through some E-Verify sort of system. As for the matter of interracial marriage (as was the subject of Loving v. Virginia, which you mentioned), I firmly believe that anyone should have the right to marry any unmarried person of the other gender, irrespective of race or ethnicity. (As I believe I have mentioned previously, race and ethnicity are simply not defining characteristics. To assert that one ought not be able to marry someone, simply because that person happens to have been born into a different race or ethnicity--even if that person is totally compatible, in every meaningful way--is simply absurd!) But I do not believe that so called "anti-miscegenation" laws--as deeply as I deplore them--were "unconstitutional" from their very inception. Rather, they were unconstitutional from the moment that the SCOTUS declared them to be unconstitutional.
Saddam was never convicted related to the Iraqi military actions against the Kurds or for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. He was only convicted for the deaths of 148 Shi'ites related to an assassination conspiracy.
Tens of millions of American could not pass an E-verify check and, for one, I'm opposed to much of the information that the US government collects on Americans. Being an American is not a privilege granted by government and we should not be treated as "subjects" of the government.
The legal institution of marriage is about MONEY. It's about the personal-financial partnership established between people.
In your opinion nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court intervenes. In short Congress could pass a law tomorrow allowing the US President to murder Americans or commit mass genocide and it's perfectly Constitutional until perhaps three or four years later when the Supreme Court acts to strike it down. Sorry but I simply don't buy that argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 18, 2015 21:19:58 GMT
c
Wikipedia speaks of the trial of Saddam Hussein, as regarding the murder of the Kurds: I am now retired--and have been for 10 years now--but if I were still employed, I would have absolutely no problem with proving my citizenship through some E-Verify sort of system. As for the matter of interracial marriage (as was the subject of Loving v. Virginia, which you mentioned), I firmly believe that anyone should have the right to marry any unmarried person of the other gender, irrespective of race or ethnicity. (As I believe I have mentioned previously, race and ethnicity are simply not defining characteristics. To assert that one ought not be able to marry someone, simply because that person happens to have been born into a different race or ethnicity--even if that person is totally compatible, in every meaningful way--is simply absurd!) But I do not believe that so called "anti-miscegenation" laws--as deeply as I deplore them--were "unconstitutional" from their very inception. Rather, they were unconstitutional from the moment that the SCOTUS declared them to be unconstitutional.
Saddam was never convicted related to the Iraqi military actions against the Kurds or for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. He was only convicted for the deaths of 148 Shi'ites related to an assassination conspiracy.
Tens of millions of American could not pass an E-verify check and, for one, I'm opposed to much of the information that the US government collects on Americans. Being an American is not a privilege granted by government and we should not be treated as "subjects" of the government.
The legal institution of marriage is about MONEY. It's about the personal-financial partnership established between people.
In your opinion nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court intervenes. In short Congress could pass a law tomorrow allowing the US President to murder Americans or commit mass genocide and it's perfectly Constitutional until perhaps three or four years later when the Supreme Court acts to strike it down. Sorry but I simply don't buy that argument.
Yes, I would indeed assert that the Congress may pass any sort of law--no matter how preposterous--and it does not become "unconstitutional" until the SCOTUS declares it to be exactly that. I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If it is all about "MONEY" (caps in original), as you have posited, couples could draw up legal papers pre-marriage, in order to establish exactly what will happen, financially, in case of a divorce. And what is your proof that "[t]ens of millions of Americans could not pass an E-verify check"? Oh, we do have one (rather strong) point of agreement here: Americans should never-- never!--be considered mere "subjects" of the federal government. (At one time, the American colonists were considered mere subjects of the British Crown; and we all know how that all turned out.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 19, 2015 14:31:10 GMT
Yes, I would indeed assert that the Congress may pass any sort of law--no matter how preposterous--and it does not become "unconstitutional" until the SCOTUS declares it to be exactly that. I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If it is all about "MONEY" (caps in original), as you have posited, couples could draw up legal papers pre-marriage, in order to establish exactly what will happen, financially, in case of a divorce. And what is your proof that "[t]ens of millions of Americans could not pass an E-verify check"? Oh, we do have one (rather strong) point of agreement here: Americans should never-- never!--be considered mere "subjects" of the federal government. (At one time, the American colonists were considered mere subjects of the British Crown; and we all know how that all turned out.)
By way of analogy, in principle, you're claiming that a bank robbery is not illegal until someone is convicted of the crime. I disagree with that opinion completely.
I would also like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It should be exclusively a matter of contract law that addresses partnerships. Like any partnership it could be based upon a written or verbal contract and could include any partners of age for legal consent. The partners would simple file a form of "marriage" for government recognition similar to a business license. As with a business partnership it would not require consent by the state for dissolution although the courts could address any matters of dispute if necessary.
The E-Verify system does not check US Citizenship and therefore cannot determine if a person is eligible to work because they're a US citizen.
While we can agree that we should never be treated by our government as subjects with the ever expanding intrusion of government it our lives it subjugating us more and more. Every bit of knowledge our government collects on us and demands from us the more we become "subjects" of the government. We shouldn't have to "prove" anything to our government to be able to exercise our inalianable or civil rights in the United States. Whenever I have to involuntarily prove something to our government related to my inalienable or civil rights I have forfeit a part of my individual sovereignty and have become a subject of the government in that situation.
In short I'm opposed to "Big Brother" government where I need the consent of the government related to my daily life. I shouldn't need Big Brother's permission to work or to vote or to walk down the street unmolested by the police for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 19, 2015 14:31:25 GMT
Yes, I would indeed assert that the Congress may pass any sort of law--no matter how preposterous--and it does not become "unconstitutional" until the SCOTUS declares it to be exactly that. I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If it is all about "MONEY" (caps in original), as you have posited, couples could draw up legal papers pre-marriage, in order to establish exactly what will happen, financially, in case of a divorce. And what is your proof that "[t]ens of millions of Americans could not pass an E-verify check"? Oh, we do have one (rather strong) point of agreement here: Americans should never-- never!--be considered mere "subjects" of the federal government. (At one time, the American colonists were considered mere subjects of the British Crown; and we all know how that all turned out.)
By way of analogy, in principle, you're claiming that a bank robbery is not illegal until someone is convicted of the crime. I disagree with that opinion completely.
I would also like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It should be exclusively a matter of contract law that addresses partnerships. Like any partnership it could be based upon a written or verbal contract and could include any partners of age for legal consent. The partners would simple file a form of "marriage" for government recognition similar to a business license. As with a business partnership it would not require consent by the state for dissolution although the courts could address any matters of dispute if necessary.
The E-Verify system does not check US Citizenship and therefore cannot determine if a person is eligible to work because they're a US citizen.
While we can agree that we should never be treated by our government as subjects with the ever expanding intrusion of government it our lives it subjugating us more and more. Every bit of knowledge our government collects on us and demands from us the more we become "subjects" of the government. We shouldn't have to "prove" anything to our government to be able to exercise our inalianable or civil rights in the United States. Whenever I have to involuntarily prove something to our government related to my inalienable or civil rights I have forfeit a part of my individual sovereignty and have become a subject of the government in that situation.
In short I'm opposed to "Big Brother" government where I need the consent of the government related to my daily life. I shouldn't need Big Brother's permission to work or to vote or to walk down the street unmolested by the police for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 20, 2015 19:19:43 GMT
Yes, I would indeed assert that the Congress may pass any sort of law--no matter how preposterous--and it does not become "unconstitutional" until the SCOTUS declares it to be exactly that. I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If it is all about "MONEY" (caps in original), as you have posited, couples could draw up legal papers pre-marriage, in order to establish exactly what will happen, financially, in case of a divorce. And what is your proof that "[t]ens of millions of Americans could not pass an E-verify check"? Oh, we do have one (rather strong) point of agreement here: Americans should never-- never!--be considered mere "subjects" of the federal government. (At one time, the American colonists were considered mere subjects of the British Crown; and we all know how that all turned out.)
By way of analogy, in principle, you're claiming that a bank robbery is not illegal until someone is convicted of the crime. I disagree with that opinion completely.
I would also like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It should be exclusively a matter of contract law that addresses partnerships. Like any partnership it could be based upon a written or verbal contract and could include any partners of age for legal consent. The partners would simple file a form of "marriage" for government recognition similar to a business license. As with a business partnership it would not require consent by the state for dissolution although the courts could address any matters of dispute if necessary.
The E-Verify system does not check US Citizenship and therefore cannot determine if a person is eligible to work because they're a US citizen.
While we can agree that we should never be treated by our government as subjects with the ever expanding intrusion of government it our lives it subjugating us more and more. Every bit of knowledge our government collects on us and demands from us the more we become "subjects" of the government. We shouldn't have to "prove" anything to our government to be able to exercise our inalianable or civil rights in the United States. Whenever I have to involuntarily prove something to our government related to my inalienable or civil rights I have forfeit a part of my individual sovereignty and have become a subject of the government in that situation.
In short I'm opposed to "Big Brother" government where I need the consent of the government related to my daily life. I shouldn't need Big Brother's permission to work or to vote or to walk down the street unmolested by the police for example.
Actually, I am not claiming that a bank robbery "is not illegal" until a conviction is secured, Rather, I am saying that those charged with robbing a bank are not to be considered guilty until a court of law has actually convicted them of the crime. We seem to largely agree on the matter of getting the government out of the marriage business, and making it simply a matter of contract law. If your only objection to E-Verify is that it "does not check US Citizenship," how, exactly, does that serve as proof of your assertion (to which I was responding) that "[t]ens of millions of Americans" could not pass such a check? And have you ever--seriously--required the government's permission to merely "work or vote or walk down the street unmolested by police"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 21, 2015 12:51:42 GMT
Actually, I am not claiming that a bank robbery "is not illegal" until a conviction is secured, Rather, I am saying that those charged with robbing a bank are not to be considered guilty until a court of law has actually convicted them of the crime. We seem to largely agree on the matter of getting the government out of the marriage business, and making it simply a matter of contract law. If your only objection to E-Verify is that it "does not check US Citizenship," how, exactly, does that serve as proof of your assertion (to which I was responding) that "[t]ens of millions of Americans" could not pass such a check? And have you ever--seriously--required the government's permission to merely "work or vote or walk down the street unmolested by police"?
When the bank robber is convicted it's based upon the "date of the crime" and not the "date of the conviction" which has no bearing on the criminal act that took place. The robbery violated the law at the time the robbery was committed regardless of whether there is a future conviction or not. When the courts strikes down a law it relates to the "date of the crime" which was when law was passed. The violation of the US Constitution is a "crime" regardless of whether there's ever a court decision on it just like the robbery is a crime regardless of whether there's ever a court decision on it.
You are aware, I assume, that by abolishing the state institution of marriage and instead addressing marriage as a matter of contract law as it applies to partnerships that it allows opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, "incestuous" marriage, and polygamous marriage I assume. The only requirements under contract law is that the partners must be of the age of majority (age of consent) and voluntarily agree to a lawful contract (written or verbal) of partnership.
E-Verify works based upon positive identification of the person but does not confirm US citizenship. A US citizen has a "right to work" because they're a US citizen but would not show up in E-Verify because it doesn't verify US Citizenship. E-Verify, failing to find positive documentation that the US citizen has a right to work in the United States, would deny them the "right to work" for the employer.
There are those, predominately in the black community, that cannot walk down the street unmolested by law enforcement. The are routinely stopped by law enforcement (without probable cause) and cannot proceed until the officer gives them permission to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 23, 2015 20:38:06 GMT
Actually, I am not claiming that a bank robbery "is not illegal" until a conviction is secured, Rather, I am saying that those charged with robbing a bank are not to be considered guilty until a court of law has actually convicted them of the crime. We seem to largely agree on the matter of getting the government out of the marriage business, and making it simply a matter of contract law. If your only objection to E-Verify is that it "does not check US Citizenship," how, exactly, does that serve as proof of your assertion (to which I was responding) that "[t]ens of millions of Americans" could not pass such a check? And have you ever--seriously--required the government's permission to merely "work or vote or walk down the street unmolested by police"?
When the bank robber is convicted it's based upon the "date of the crime" and not the "date of the conviction" which has no bearing on the criminal act that took place. The robbery violated the law at the time the robbery was committed regardless of whether there is a future conviction or not. When the courts strikes down a law it relates to the "date of the crime" which was when law was passed. The violation of the US Constitution is a "crime" regardless of whether there's ever a court decision on it just like the robbery is a crime regardless of whether there's ever a court decision on it.
You are aware, I assume, that by abolishing the state institution of marriage and instead addressing marriage as a matter of contract law as it applies to partnerships that it allows opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, "incestuous" marriage, and polygamous marriage I assume. The only requirements under contract law is that the partners must be of the age of majority (age of consent) and voluntarily agree to a lawful contract (written or verbal) of partnership.
E-Verify works based upon positive identification of the person but does not confirm US citizenship. A US citizen has a "right to work" because they're a US citizen but would not show up in E-Verify because it doesn't verify US Citizenship. E-Verify, failing to find positive documentation that the US citizen has a right to work in the United States, would deny them the "right to work" for the employer.
There are those, predominately in the black community, that cannot walk down the street unmolested by law enforcement. The are routinely stopped by law enforcement (without probable cause) and cannot proceed until the officer gives them permission to go.
If a black person (or any other person) is stopped by a law-enforcement officer, presumably, it is because he (or she) is acting suspiciously-- not because of racism run amok in our various police departments. If a bank robber is convicted, that conviction is, indeed, for the date that the action in question took place. So what? If a particular religious institution wishes to license "same-sex marriage, 'incestuous' marriage, and polygymous marriage," it should be free to do so. But I doubt that very many religious institutions will do this. (Perhaps a few very progressive religious institutions will place their imprimaturs upon same-sex marriage; and a fundamentalist offshoot or two of the LDS may agree to polygymous marriage; but that is probably about all.) Are you claiming that E-Verify just would not work--that it would, effectively, deny the right to work to any American citizen, since it is inadequate to prove citizenship--and that any bugs in the system could not possibly be resolved? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 24, 2015 9:28:10 GMT
If a black person (or any other person) is stopped by a law-enforcement officer, presumably, it is because he (or she) is acting suspiciously-- not because of racism run amok in our various police departments. If a bank robber is convicted, that conviction is, indeed, for the date that the action in question took place. So what? If a particular religious institution wishes to license "same-sex marriage, 'incestuous' marriage, and polygymous marriage," it should be free to do so. But I doubt that very many religious institutions will do this. (Perhaps a few very progressive religious institutions will place their imprimaturs upon same-sex marriage; and a fundamentalist offshoot or two of the LDS may agree to polygymous marriage; but that is probably about all.) Are you claiming that E-Verify just would not work--that it would, effectively, deny the right to work to any American citizen, since it is inadequate to prove citizenship--and that any bugs in the system could not possibly be resolved?
The problem with your statement is that you used the word "presumably" and in fact thousands of stops of young black men are occuring annually where they were not acting suspiciously. Of course law enforcement officers will always say that the young black person was acting "suspiciously" lacking any conclusive evidence to the contrary the officer's word is "always" assumed to be true. Remember you're talking to someone that was profiled by law enforcement in the past and we (my long-haired surfing buddies and I) were stopped and frisked and had our vehicles searched all of the time without us doing anything suspicious.
If a law is overturned because it was unconstitutional then it was always unconstitutional. The date of the "offense" is the date the law was enacted into law because it was always unconstitutional.
If marriage becomes a matter of pure contract law then religious institutions have nothing to do with it. Contract law doesn't address religious beliefs.
If E-Verify could work then why is the government apparently having such a hard time when it comes to voter registration? Isn't voter registration about verifying US citizenship and checking for criminal records that would prohibit voting under our current laws? There's one hell of a difference between verifying the working status of 15 million people and verifying the working status of 150 million people. E-Verify currently has a failure rate of about 4% so you're talking about it failing 6 million times when it comes to US citizens and actually the failure rate would be many times more than 4% of we increase the number of people requiring verification by ten-fold.
Besides, do you really want Big Government being even more intrusive into your life? It's already spying on everyone of us and that's highly unacceptable to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 25, 2015 18:18:07 GMT
If a black person (or any other person) is stopped by a law-enforcement officer, presumably, it is because he (or she) is acting suspiciously-- not because of racism run amok in our various police departments. If a bank robber is convicted, that conviction is, indeed, for the date that the action in question took place. So what? If a particular religious institution wishes to license "same-sex marriage, 'incestuous' marriage, and polygymous marriage," it should be free to do so. But I doubt that very many religious institutions will do this. (Perhaps a few very progressive religious institutions will place their imprimaturs upon same-sex marriage; and a fundamentalist offshoot or two of the LDS may agree to polygymous marriage; but that is probably about all.) Are you claiming that E-Verify just would not work--that it would, effectively, deny the right to work to any American citizen, since it is inadequate to prove citizenship--and that any bugs in the system could not possibly be resolved?
The problem with your statement is that you used the word "presumably" and in fact thousands of stops of young black men are occuring annually where they were not acting suspiciously. Of course law enforcement officers will always say that the young black person was acting "suspiciously" lacking any conclusive evidence to the contrary the officer's word is "always" assumed to be true. Remember you're talking to someone that was profiled by law enforcement in the past and we (my long-haired surfing buddies and I) were stopped and frisked and had our vehicles searched all of the time without us doing anything suspicious.
If a law is overturned because it was unconstitutional then it was always unconstitutional. The date of the "offense" is the date the law was enacted into law because it was always unconstitutional.
If marriage becomes a matter of pure contract law then religious institutions have nothing to do with it. Contract law doesn't address religious beliefs.
If E-Verify could work then why is the government apparently having such a hard time when it comes to voter registration? Isn't voter registration about verifying US citizenship and checking for criminal records that would prohibit voting under our current laws? There's one hell of a difference between verifying the working status of 15 million people and verifying the working status of 150 million people. E-Verify currently has a failure rate of about 4% so you're talking about it failing 6 million times when it comes to US citizens and actually the failure rate would be many times more than 4% of we increase the number of people requiring verification by ten-fold.
Besides, do you really want Big Government being even more intrusive into your life? It's already spying on everyone of us and that's highly unacceptable to me.
I do not consider it government "intrusi[on]" to verify one's citizenship prior to that person's being allowed to vote. And if there are bugs in the E-Verify system as it currently exists, I would rather work them out than to abandon the system altogether. I believe that the institution of marriage is essentially a religious institution; and that it should, therefore, be left exclusively to religious institutions to conduct marriages and divorces. As an aside, couples should feel free to make out pre-nuptial agreements (the "contract law" part). We will evidently never agree on the "when," as concerning the unconstitutionality of a law. So it is probably pointless to continue this part of the discussion. I view the police as those who are sworn to serve and protect. (In fact, that is the motto that many police departments use.) Despite this, there are (as with any organization) a few bad apples. You seem to view police in the very opposite way: as people determined to harass and oppress, with perhaps a few (good) exceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 27, 2015 13:11:23 GMT
I do not consider it government "intrusi[on]" to verify one's citizenship prior to that person's being allowed to vote. And if there are bugs in the E-Verify system as it currently exists, I would rather work them out than to abandon the system altogether. I believe that the institution of marriage is essentially a religious institution; and that it should, therefore, be left exclusively to religious institutions to conduct marriages and divorces. As an aside, couples should feel free to make out pre-nuptial agreements (the "contract law" part). We will evidently never agree on the "when," as concerning the unconstitutionality of a law. So it is probably pointless to continue this part of the discussion. I view the police as those who are sworn to serve and protect. (In fact, that is the motto that many police departments use.) Despite this, there are (as with any organization) a few bad apples. You seem to view police in the very opposite way: as people determined to harass and oppress, with perhaps a few (good) exceptions.
Every election board has the authority to verify the voter registration of a person where they claim under penalty of perjury that they are a US citizen and lawfully entitled to vote. That being the case why should registered voters ever need to produce a government issued ID to actually vote considering the fact that people don't misrepresent who they are when they vote at the polls?
To address the problems with E-verify would impose an enormous cost and, according to the CATO Institute, it is a redundant system that is unnecessary.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-costs-e-verify
Do you hold the belief that secular marriages should not be allowed under the law? In point of fact the only purpose of marriage is the personal/financial partnership established regardless of any religious beliefs. Religion has nothing to do with marriage from the government's perspective nor is it a factor in the thousands of laws that cite "marriage" as a condition of the law.
As for Constitutionality we know that a person convicted by an unconstitutional act by the government can have their conviction over-turned. The impact of a Supreme Court decision is retroactive related to all prior cases. We may not agree but I'm standing on legal precedent where cases that occurred prior to a Supreme Court decision on Constitutionality can be appealed based upon the decision.
You misrepresent my opinion of law enforcement. I would contend that they do try to "serve and protect" but extensive prejudice exists where law enforcement violates the Constitutionally protected rights of the person. Based upon racial profiling law enforcement officers can easily be deceived into believing that three young black men are conducting a drug deal on the corner when, in fact, the three young black men could have been sharing a pack of cigarettes. The fact they are three young black men does not provide evidence that anything criminal is happening nor does a pack of cigarettes indicate that there are drugs in the pack. Law enforcement needs far more evidence than that to make a stop. The "Stop and Frisks" are not based upon the criteria the Supreme Court has already ruled to be necessary and they're based upon racial prejudice by law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 27, 2015 22:15:12 GMT
I do not consider it government "intrusi[on]" to verify one's citizenship prior to that person's being allowed to vote. And if there are bugs in the E-Verify system as it currently exists, I would rather work them out than to abandon the system altogether. I believe that the institution of marriage is essentially a religious institution; and that it should, therefore, be left exclusively to religious institutions to conduct marriages and divorces. As an aside, couples should feel free to make out pre-nuptial agreements (the "contract law" part). We will evidently never agree on the "when," as concerning the unconstitutionality of a law. So it is probably pointless to continue this part of the discussion. I view the police as those who are sworn to serve and protect. (In fact, that is the motto that many police departments use.) Despite this, there are (as with any organization) a few bad apples. You seem to view police in the very opposite way: as people determined to harass and oppress, with perhaps a few (good) exceptions.
Every election board has the authority to verify the voter registration of a person where they claim under penalty of perjury that they are a US citizen and lawfully entitled to vote. That being the case why should registered voters ever need to produce a government issued ID to actually vote considering the fact that people don't misrepresent who they are when they vote at the polls?
To address the problems with E-verify would impose an enormous cost and, according to the CATO Institute, it is a redundant system that is unnecessary.
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/economic-costs-e-verify
Do you hold the belief that secular marriages should not be allowed under the law? In point of fact the only purpose of marriage is the personal/financial partnership established regardless of any religious beliefs. Religion has nothing to do with marriage from the government's perspective nor is it a factor in the thousands of laws that cite "marriage" as a condition of the law.
As for Constitutionality we know that a person convicted by an unconstitutional act by the government can have their conviction over-turned. The impact of a Supreme Court decision is retroactive related to all prior cases. We may not agree but I'm standing on legal precedent where cases that occurred prior to a Supreme Court decision on Constitutionality can be appealed based upon the decision.
You misrepresent my opinion of law enforcement. I would contend that they do try to "serve and protect" but extensive prejudice exists where law enforcement violates the Constitutionally protected rights of the person. Based upon racial profiling law enforcement officers can easily be deceived into believing that three young black men are conducting a drug deal on the corner when, in fact, the three young black men could have been sharing a pack of cigarettes. The fact they are three young black men does not provide evidence that anything criminal is happening nor does a pack of cigarettes indicate that there are drugs in the pack. Law enforcement needs far more evidence than that to make a stop. The "Stop and Frisks" are not based upon the criteria the Supreme Court has already ruled to be necessary and they're based upon racial prejudice by law enforcement.
I certainly agree that the mere presence of "three young black men," handling a pack of cigarettes, does not, in and of itself, constitute "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. Any officers stopping young black men for no other reason than this should indeed be disciplined. Secular couples may, indeed, choose to live together--what people used to refer to as "common-law marriages"--but the religious imprimatur of "marriage" would not be placed upon such relationships. (Financial arrangements could be made--as noted previously--through a contractual agreement.) Somehow, I doubt that you consider the "cost" of E-Verify to be the chief argument against it. You just want to make sure that everyone gets to vote--including non-citizens--whereas I do not... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 3, 2015 14:22:20 GMT
I certainly agree that the mere presence of "three young black men," handling a pack of cigarettes, does not, in and of itself, constitute "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. Any officers stopping young black men for no other reason than this should indeed be disciplined. Secular couples may, indeed, choose to live together--what people used to refer to as "common-law marriages"--but the religious imprimatur of "marriage" would not be placed upon such relationships. (Financial arrangements could be made--as noted previously--through a contractual agreement.) Somehow, I doubt that you consider the "cost" of E-Verify to be the chief argument against it. You just want to make sure that everyone gets to vote--including non-citizens--whereas I do not...
The problem is that young blacks are stopped and frisked for far less reason than even passing a pack of cigarettes. Merely standing together or walking down the street together results in them being stopped and frisked. Of course when the "word" of law enforcement officers is always accepted as being the truth, sort of overwhelming compelling evidence to the contrary, there is virtually nothing to stop this practice.
Our government would only be concerned with the "contractual marriage" and not the "religious marriages" under the law. The government's only concern is with "property" and all property is addressed as matters of contract.
When it comes to immigration and voting I support the original intent of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution does not enumerate any authority to the Congress to control immigration to the United States and there were no immigration restrictions until racism intervened and created immigration restrictions starting in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.
Both Article I and the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution establish that members of Congress will be elected by the "people" and the "people" include all permanent residents of the United States regardless of citizenship. Non-citizens were allowed to vote when the US was founded and it wasn't until racism in the late 19th Century resulted in the revocation of the right to vote for non-citizens.
So I must ask that while I fully support the US Constitution why do you oppose the US Constitution when it comes to immigration and voting?
constitution.findlaw.com/
|
|
