It’s got nothing to do with which provisions I want us to ignore. 4.1 explicitly contradicts the established body of Constitutional law (for now), and the rest (at least the parts I’m familiar with) doesn’t.
Where in the Constitution of the United States are the rights to fair and speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. reserved only for American citizens?
This unworthy one grovels, and begs to differ. The whole “life begins at conception” bugbear is a peculiarity, it stands out rather strikingly as an insertion of an agenda, forced into the document to support that agenda, that is, it hopes to accomplish precisely what you point out. It hopes to assert that these fundamental human rights are somehow directly and inherently based upon a “pro-life” dogma, that life begins at conception.
In that sense, it has strong similarity to refusing to provide condoms as prevenative of AIDS, even though all evidence indicates that it is effective, and saves lives. It is the triumph of a doctrine that has no direct bearing. Whether or not people become people at birth or no, they are nonetheless people, and have certain inalienable rights. The “human at conception” dogma does not directly bear on it, it is forced in to support a wholly irrelevent agenda.
ALL the rights in the Constitution are reserved for U.S. citizens. Some have been extended to others over the years by legislation or judicial action, some have not. For example, no matter what the Constitution says, you as a Canadian citizen do not have the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. You may gain that right if you immigrate, and will gain that right if you become a citizen, but if you’re here illegally or just visiting, you do not have that right.
IOW, exactly what Bricker said: You don’t like it so you’re going to attempt to explain it away.
You are welcome to your self-serving interpretation of my argument and motives. Just as you are welcome to believe in the guilt of someone without any evidence but your abiding faith in the Powers That Be.
I have no such faith, and have not had for a very, very long time.
It’s funny that in Billy Wilder’s 1953 production of Stalag 17 depriving a soldier of sleep was sufficient to show the Nazi’s cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment of American prisoners (the scene here at ~4:30). Wilder et al. could have had shown von Scherbach doing any number of things to Dunbar to get him to confess to his act of sabotage, he chose sleep deprivation and being forced to stand, I.E. a stress position, another current non-torture torture.
Kinda hard to watch that scene now and have any sympathy for Lt. Dunbar, now that I know there’s nothing really wrong with keeping someone from sleeping for days :rolleyes: .
In 1953 the nature of sleep deprivation was clear, it was cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment, that it it’s even a question now says much about our nation … none of it good.
CMC +fnord!
(von Scherbach’s nature is established in events before the film begins. Manfredi and Johnson could have been captured during their escape, instead they were immediately shot when they emerge from the tunnel under the wire. While (IIRC) it’s never explicitly stated in the film, there really can’t be any doubt who ordered those executions. There’s nothing to suggest that “real” torture would have been out of the question for von Scherbach and everything to suggest that this was just the start of the suffering that Dunbar would have to endure.)
You’re making assumptions that aren’t true 'Luci. I think Boumediene was a very bad decision because it’s a terrible precedent, at the same time I think the Guantanamo detainees should have been processed out of there (tried, released, whatever) a long time ago. I personally think that Roe v Wade is BAD law and should be overturned, yet at the same time I believe that abortion should be legal and available (with a few restrictions)to any woman that wants one. I can decry case law that I don’t like even if the specific outcome is one that I favor, see how that works?
And I’m curious, this overwhelming distrust of government that you’ve had for a very, very long time, does that only extend to policies you don’t agree with, like the Iraq war, or does it extend to everything, like, say, Universal Health Care? Like I said, jus’ curious.
Do you have support for your contention that all the rights in the Constitution are reserved for US citizens?
Which you can tell, because they wrote it in the different-colored-agenda ink.
:rolleyes:
So parts of this document (the ones that you like) were delivered by angels singing hosanna, and speak to the basic human dignity that we all should acknowledge, and anyone failing to grasp that is the most obtuse, deluded goniff that the fates ever placed upon the Earth.
But other parts of the document (the ones you don’t like) are an aberration, and when they were inserted the angels wept, the flowers lost their bloom and fruit withered on the vine.
And the bastards didn’t even have the decency to use different colored inks to distinguish between the two? That was quite an oversight.
Look, some basic debating honesty would be nice here. You can’t quote a section of the document so approvingly when it supports your argument, and then claim that another portion that doesn’t is just useless garbage, unless you have some principled method of distinguishing between the two. Are we back to using your conscience? What happens after you die? Have you identified a successor that will also be privy to The Revealed Truth?
Well, to be fair, you did quote that part in red. 
Here’s a question for the American legal eagles: which of the following American rights and freedoms are protected for all people under US jurisdiction regardless of citizenship, and which rights and freedoms are reserved for citizens only?
[ul]Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression[/ul]
[ul]Right to Bear Arms[/ul]
[ul]Search and Seizure[/ul]
[ul]Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings[/ul]
[ul]Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses[/ul]
[ul]Trial by Jury in Civil Cases[/ul]
[ul]Cruel and Unusual Punishment[/ul]
[ul]Construction of Constitution[/ul]
[ul]Powers of the States and People[/ul]
[ul]Judicial Limits[/ul]
[ul]Citizenship Rights (life, liberty, property, due process, equal protection)[/ul]
By comparison, here it how it is laid out in Canada:
[ul]Fundamental freedoms (conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, press/media, peaceful assembly, association) – all[/ul]
[ul]Democratic rights – citizens[/ul]
[ul]Mobility rights – citizens[/ul]
[ul]Legal rights – all[/ul]
[ul]Equality rights – all[/ul]
[ul]English/French language rights – all[/ul]
[ul]Minority language education rights – citizens[/ul]
[ul]Enforcement of Charter rights and freedoms – all[/ul]
:smack:
Hoist by my own rhetorical petard!!
Well, this gets into a broader discussion of citizenship, which I’m sure you will agree carries with it responsibilities as well as certain protections and rights. And one of those responsibilities might be to refrain from engaging in a war against your country’s historic ally and even against your own country - Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan since the fall of 2001.
When Khadr threw that grenade, or was in the company of people who threw it, it could easily have been Canadian soldiers on the receiving end of it. So while I agree that a discussion of Khadr’s rights is entirely appropriate, this matter is worthy of discussion as well.
AFAIK, Khadr was born in Canada, so it’s not like his citizenship can be revoked.
The problem with that, tohugh, is that while we all have the obligation to obey the law, some of the rights and protections we have only come into play when we’re accused of breaking the law. Rights arent just for the law abiding.
Well, OK. We’ll start our process of reforming the thoroughly dishonest me by noting that I didn’t quote the document at all. Baby steps, ya know?
Of course. My mistake.
I thought you were adopting the position in the discussion that approved of the document when you joined it, already in progress, and disagreed with the statement I had made. But in fact, I merely assumed. My bad.
Thus chastened, I have to admit it’s unclear to me what, precisely, you were endorsing when the exchange occurred.
I said:
You replied:
I had thought, you see, that if I said, “…it strikes me as a tad disingenuous to refer to this document as though it’s got some valuable moral guidance…” and you replied that you disagreed, you were endorsing that position. But as I re-read, I see there were other things you could have been focusing your disagreement on.
What did you disagree with?
I think that insertion of the “from conception” language likely reflects another agenda altogether, it is dragging in a whole different set of issues, in order to bolster an agenda that has little, if anything, to do with the matter at hand. It sort of jumps out at one, don’t you think?
The “from conception” language reflects the strongly Catholic membership of the OAS (Organization of American States), FYI.