There's rioting? Didn't know, I've been following the Bowling Green massacre on CNN. Oh, the humanityOne thing for sure. " change is a coming". Keep that rioting entertaining.
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
Will Trump's Take on Trade Be Boost or Bust for Fleets?
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch
This is article1 section8 in its entirety
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's not the right part for that argument
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's not the right part for that argument
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Not wrong. Anyone within the US, regardless of who they are, have the same protections under the Constitution as a US citizen. One of the reasons Gitmo is still open is because if they close it and bring all the detainees here, they'll have the protections of the Constitution, like the right to have formal charged brought against them, among others. There are, of course, a few rights reserved solely for US citizens, such as the right to vote (yeah, well), the right to run for elected political office, and gun ownership (yeah, well).
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court settled it, James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution and second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Here's a link that shows the SCOTUS rulings affirming that ever'body has the same rights.
Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?
Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are not protected by the Constitution when outside of the country. While the Constitution prevents, say, discrimination on the basis of religion, a religious test can actually be used to determine immigration, despite the screams of the left. You hear it all the time lately, that "the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants!!!"
Well, no it doesn't. Article IV states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” There's nothing in the Constitution or the Immigration Act of 1965 that prevents using a religious test to grant entry by immigrants, refugees or visitors into the US.
Last edited:
But I can buy a gun here.
Part of the reason for the "(yeah, well)" above.
The way the Second Amendment is written, it only applies to US citizens (according to the Supreme Court). But that doesn't prevent the States and/or Congress from expanding that through legislation, which Congress did. Under federal law, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. It used to be that way for all immigrants, but Congress created legislation so that a permanent resident can buy a gun.
The other part of the reason for the "(yeah, well") above is a combination of three cases.
One is the Supreme Court case that finally settled, once and for all, that the Second Amendment referred to personal firearm ownership, the District of Columbia v. Heller case. The key part of the Second Amendment in the Heller case was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The ruling stated "law abiding citizens" and used "the people" and "law abiding citizens" interchangeably the same way the Founding Father did.
The second case is United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, which involved the Fourth Amendment, where the Supreme Court explicitly noted that “the people” is a “term of art” that bears a similar meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments but a different meaning in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Specifically, the Verdugo-Urquidez Court noted that “the people” in the Second Amendment context encompasses “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered a part of that community.”
That should have been enough to settle things with the Second Amendment and who "the people" actually are. But no. The 2015 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez that ignored all of the above and came to the exact opposite conclusion, citing various Fifth Amendment cases and noting that unauthorized alien status cannot mean “per se exclusion from ‘the people’ protected by the Bill of Rights.”
On August 20, 2015, Chief Judge Diane Wood (an uber-liberal activist appointee of Bill Clinton, who incidentally was on Obama’s short-list with Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court) wrote for the three-judge panel of the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit that the court could “see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that [illegal aliens] are excluded” from exercising Second Amendment rights.
This court could have chosen between two meanings of “the people”: the one referring only to American citizens, and the other also including some (but not all) noncitizens. It freely chose to reject the argument that the right to bear arms is a special right that the Constitution promises to citizens eligible to vote. So, thanks for diminishing US citizenship for everybody, Diane. The 7th Circuit, in a purely activist-judge dick-move, ignored the vital distinction the Constitution makes between American citizens as opposed to foreigners (illegal aliens in particular), and it degrades the Second Amendment into a right that can be regulated far more heavily (and thus carries much less force) than other fundamental rights.
The federal government cannot appeal this decision, because the case was about affirming the district court’s decision not to dismiss the case against Meza-Rodriguez, which the government won, and you can't appeal a case you won. But within the affirmed ruling the court really made a mess, and unless Meza-Rodriguez appeals (which is unlikely since this is over a single bullet found in his pocket and he's long been deported as an illegal alien), this mess of a ruling will stay on the books until another case of personal possession of a firearm by an illegal alien works its way through the court system, probably up to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, new laws will be enacted chipping away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens (and Green Card holders).
One funny little loophole in the federal law, though...
Look at that closely. And it's been affirmed in several court cases. You can come here on a nonimmigrant visa, and all you have to do is obtain a valid hunting license, and you can then go buy a gun. Hilarious.
I like to think of it as exporting containers fully loaded with dispatcher brains.Try and think of it as exporting air.
so far only 2 things i can't do....
Vote...and
Call myself an American.....Impersonating an American is a Federal offense punishable by 5 yrs in Federal prison
Vote...and
Call myself an American.....Impersonating an American is a Federal offense punishable by 5 yrs in Federal prison
how many dispatchers would we need to accomplish this?...I like to think of it as exporting containers fully loaded with dispatcher brains.Try and think of it as exporting air.
Let's see the different terminology we have
Load planners
Load acquisition aka bidders
Customer service
Dispatchers aka Load distribution
Load planners
Load acquisition aka bidders
Customer service
Dispatchers aka Load distribution
And never mind about Canada ...juju almost didn't get into the country to live because she did not have enough points to qualify for entry.there has to be a need for your trade and that No Canadians available to do that job...
Immigration has a lot of different rules as compared to being a refugee
Immigration has a lot of different rules as compared to being a refugee
TORONTO — A blind grandmother is being forced to leave Toronto and return to her native Poland tonight after living in Canada for 11 years.
Stefania Elzbieta Magdziak arrived on a tourist visa in 1998 to visit her son and daughter, but never left.
The 69-year-old says she applied to stay in the country under humanitarian and compassionate grounds but had her case denied.
Stefania Elzbieta Magdziak arrived on a tourist visa in 1998 to visit her son and daughter, but never left.
The 69-year-old says she applied to stay in the country under humanitarian and compassionate grounds but had her case denied.
Not a problem for Mexicans, though.
But, Mexicans don't like to go to football games. When the crowd chants DE-FENCE DE-FENCE they think they're at a Trump rally.
It would be interesting if someone from Canada sued the us government for unfair immigration practices !!!
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums