Funeral protesters sued

[Trent 0]

Quote

Is it your belief that you (or anyone) could kill an illegal immigrant and face no legal punishment? Might want to rethink your statement.

Might want to rethink your attempt to twist what I did (didn't) say! I'm getting tired of that shit, Bill. A HUMAN right to life, is different from the "right" to attend schools not paid for or the "right" to vote in local elections or the "right" to not be deported on sight or the "right" to have a driver's license and no consequences for not having insurance. THESE are non-existent rights, Bill. Did I really have to explain that, or were you just trying to get in a "gotcha"?

Quote

They have a pretty defined stance on gun control; they believe that the second amendment refers to the right for militias, not private citizens, to own guns. You may disagree with it (I do) but your disagreement with someone does not make them a hypocrite.

So... they have a pretty literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment... but all the others are "flexible, living-breathing amendments"? It's a hypocritical position.

Oh, hello again!

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

If it was the gov't trying to stop the nutjobs from demonstrating at the funerals, then yes the ACLU might step in. This is a civil case between two private parties. The ACLU could care less about such matters.

Actually, I recently worked on an ACLU case. It was Schielder v. National Organization for Women. It was a civil suit. The NOW sued under the Civil RICO act, and lost. Miserably. Want to know why they lost? Because the court decided the abortion clinic protestors had a right to free speech.

The ACLU (and I) thought differently because these people were making threats of dismemberment to doctors and patients of the clinic. This type of speech is not protected.

The courts in this country have been very clear: the remedy for very unpopular (mean, demented, etc) speech is not to silence the speaker. It's to combat that speech with more speech. Better speech. The kind of speech that is going on here, in these forums. We all know these people are wrong. But that doesn't give us (or anyone) the right to make them shut up.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[billvon 3,132]

>A HUMAN right to life, is different from the "right" to attend schools
> not paid for or the "right" to vote in local elections or the "right" to
> not be deported on sight or the "right" to have a driver's license and
> no consequences for not having insurance.

How about the right to humane treatment in jail? The right to legal representation once arrested and charged with a crime? The right to a speedy trial if charged with a crime? Are they non-existent as well? That's a rhetorical question, because some think they should be nonexistent. Which is where groups like the ACLU come in.

>So... they have a pretty literal interpretation of the 2nd
>amendment... but all the others are "flexible, living-breathing
>amendments"? It's a hypocritical position.

No more hypocritical than the gun-rights people who feel the second amendment is inviolate and vital to the US, but the fourth amendment can be bent when we're scared (and when applied to swarthy bearded men.)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The right to legal representation once arrested and charged with a crime? The right to a speedy trial if charged with a crime?

Just a question, Bill.

Aren't these American rights that apply to American citizens?

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Aren't these American rights that apply to American citizens?

That's the $64,000 question. Generally, anyone charged with a crime in the US has a right to representation at their trial. If you don't want to afford them that right, release them back into their own country (which is what we do with most illegal immigrants we catch.)

This question has become a bigger issue lately because the government has used the label of "enemy combatant" to remove the rights of people (including US citizens) who they wish to imprison. This may have some bleedover into the illegal immigrant arena - which is why there is a lot of brouhaha over it.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

The right to legal representation once arrested and charged with a crime? The right to a speedy trial if charged with a crime?

Just a question, Bill.

Aren't these American rights that apply to American citizens?

No. With very few, if any, exceptions, these rights extend to any person, regardless of citizenship, charged with a crime on United States soil, or in American criminal custody. So, for example, if a Nigerian citizen is arrested in Kalamazoo, Michigan & charged with burglary & possesion of cocaine, he's entitled to the same constitutional protections as a US citizen is.

[Trent 0]

Quote

How about the right to humane treatment in jail? The right to legal representation once arrested and charged with a crime? The right to a speedy trial if charged with a crime? Are they non-existent as well? That's a rhetorical question, because some think they should be nonexistent. Which is where groups like the ACLU come in.

So then, are you acknowledging that having the ACLU defend "rights" like those I mentioned is total bullshit and a waste of court time?

Does the right to NOT be hurt (another HUMAN right) extend into illegals being provided with ethnically sensitive food? That's the ACLU domain. Outside of BASIC human rights, they shouldn't be afforded any American rights. THAT'S part of the incentive to come here. If it were more dangerous for them, they'd have less incentive. The ACLU comes in consistently on the side of giving away the store. It's obvious where they stand on everything... just pick the side that hurts the US the most.

Quote

No more hypocritical than the gun-rights people who feel the second amendment is inviolate and vital to the US, but the fourth amendment can be bent when we're scared (and when applied to swarthy bearded men.)

So their actual position is AS hypocritical as an imaginary example of giving up rights for racism? Thanks, I thought it was pretty bad too. Hypocrites.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

>Outside of BASIC human rights, they shouldn't be afforded any
>American rights.

One of the reasons I am proud of being an american is that we equate basic rights with american's rights. We don't (usually) jail foreigners just because they are foreigners. We treat criminals as criminals, not as hispanic criminals or japanese criminals or southern criminals. We treat law abiding citizens as law abiding citizens, whether they just came over the border, or they've been here for 200 years.

If the ACLU helps that happen, good for them.

>It's obvious where they stand on everything... just pick the side
>that hurts the US the most.

I am glad I am not like you.

[Ian84 0]

Fred Phelps, in a letter to Saddam Hussein,
November 30, 1997

Quote

"We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message...The same majoritarian sodomite tyranny that now guides the Clinton administration's repressive policies toward Gospel preaching on America's streets, is apparently responsible -- at least in part -- for the merciless slaughter by starvation of 400 innocent Iraqi babies each day in your country. If our government and laws will allow it, and at the invitation of your government, we would like to send a delegation from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, to preach the Gospel on the streets of Baghdad for one week in the near future."

Wonder whats stopping him........as far as I'm concerned he should go do us all a favour

[Trent 0]

Quote

One of the reasons I am proud of being an american is that we equate basic rights with american's rights.

I'm proud to be an American for many reasons. One of the things I'm proud of are the rights we have as citizens. Voting, public schools, I could go on. Tell me, since you feel the "rights" extend to everyone, can illegals buy weapons here? I mean, it's our 2nd amendment right... if they can't, should they be afforded that right?

Quote

We don't (usually) jail foreigners just because they are foreigners. We treat criminals as criminals, not as hispanic criminals or japanese criminals or southern criminals.

Yes, and criminals tend to lose their rights... I mean, is that constitutional?? They're IN the US, they should be able to buy guns, vote from jail, and travel wherever they want, right? The point wasn't about criminals, it was about illegals being "given rights" that they just don't deserve to have... see my list from the other post. I know you want to ignore it and make it sound like I'm for the jailing, abuse, and whatever else of people not like me... but it's bullshit and you know it.

Quote

We treat law abiding citizens as law abiding citizens, whether they just came over the border, or they've been here for 200 years.

...and your point is? The ACLU is defending non-citizens who they feel should be afforded every right and privelege of a citizen.

Quote

I am glad I am not like you.

At least we agree on something... but you'd be right more often if you were!

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

>I'm proud to be an American for many reasons. One of the things
>I'm proud of are the rights we have as citizens.

I'm proud of the rights we have as human beings. The constitution does not say "We the citizens of the United States . . " it says "We the People." People, not citizens, are afforded rights here.

>Voting, public schools, I could go on. Tell me, since you feel
>the "rights" extend to everyone, can illegals buy weapons here?

While many gun nuts think that criminals SHOULD be able to buy weapons, I am not one of them. The reason they should be denied this right is not because they are immigrants, or because they are hispanic, or because they were not born here - but because they are criminals.

>The point wasn't about criminals, it was about illegals being
>"given rights" that they just don't deserve to have...

You keep saying "illegals" as if you want to treat them differently. They're not different. There are criminals and law-abiding people. Criminals lose their rights no matter where they are from. Law-abiding people do not, no matter what their immigration status, color or country of origin.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

The ACLU is defending non-citizens who they feel should be the Constitution gurantees are afforded every right and privelege of a citizen when charged with a crime on United States soil.

Fixed it to make it factual.

If you don't like the fact that the Constitution is largely blind to citizenship with regard to the rights of people charged with crimes in the US, then petition your congressman or senator to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution. If it passes 2/3 of the Congress and is ratified by 3/4 of the states, you'll get what you want.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They have a pretty defined stance on gun control; they believe that the second amendment refers to the right for militias, not private citizens, to own guns. You may disagree with it (I do) but your disagreement with someone does not make them a hypocrite.

The ACLU doesn't have to defend the 2nd Amendment. I appreciate their effors on the remainder of our rights. But I won't support them with money because of their hypocrisy on the 2nd.

It is impossible to reconcile their notions that "people" (you and me) have rights in all the other sections of the Bill of Rights, but do not in the second one listed. Somehow those "people" became government bodies, even though the BoR was clearly written for the "People" (you and I again)

It's quite apparent that they've made this distinction between "people" for personal political beliefs, not one of consistency.

And Lucky - we have more rights than those listed in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to own guns, it merely affirms it. As a leftie you should know this.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The bad thing about this situation is that all of these "Phelps" suits will tie up our legal system in the name of something that almost all Americans know is wrong.

I think these will be very quick trials. It may still be effective against Phelps, much as the gun controllers tried with some success to bankrupt the gun industry with meritless cases.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

wonder how many law suits this "so called" church can endure before they go belly up

Since a large proportion of Fred Phelp's children are litigation lawyers, a long, long time.

They make a lot of their money by suing people and winning.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[racer42 0]

Quote

Quote

Please show me where in the text of the 2nd that it states you can own a gun.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like I keep saying, Democracy is a messy business.

It's a bitch maintaining the most freedom to the most people ever in history.

We will as a nation, I hope, continue to keep disagreeing with each other. Cause it's all over as soon as we all agree on everything.

People like the Phelps family are insane. How can you live and believe like that??

Yet here we are, stuck, with their hate filled insanity, while thousands of our neighbors are over seas for better or worse, defending their Rights to be lunatics.

America is the great experiment.

I'm proud to be part of it.

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock

[Trent 0]

Quote

I'm proud of the rights we have as human beings. The constitution does not say "We the citizens of the United States . . " it says "We the People." People, not citizens, are afforded rights here.

No no... Bill, I'm disappointed. You have to read the next few words in the constitution... it really says, "We the People of the United States..." What do you suppose that last part means? Hey, you brought it up. Creative editing doesn't work anymore.

Quote

While many gun nuts think that criminals SHOULD be able to buy weapons, I am not one of them. The reason they should be denied this right is not because they are immigrants, or because they are hispanic, or because they were not born here - but because they are criminals.

So, you're cool with illegal immigrants getting guns under the 2nd amendment? What you can't understand is the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. As many "illegal rights" supporters, you equate not wanting illegals getting handouts, voting, special incentives, etc with racism. Makes it easier to argue your side, so I understand.

Quote

You keep saying "illegals" as if you want to treat them differently. They're not different. There are criminals and law-abiding people. Criminals lose their rights no matter where they are from. Law-abiding people do not, no matter what their immigration status, color or country of origin.

It is my opinion, that "illegal immigrants" don't LOSE any basic human rights, but are simply NOT AFFORDED those rights that we as citizens (people OF the United States) have... such as voting, access to public schools, etc. Is that hard to understand?

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>You keep saying "illegals" as if you want to treat them differently. They're not different. There are criminals and law-abiding people. Criminals lose their rights no matter where they are from. Law-abiding people do not, no matter what their immigration status, color or country of origin.

How do you reconcile the above statement with -> an "illegal" immigrant broke the law - and one who breaks the law is the definition of a "criminal".

Will you equate it with speeding 5 MPH over?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

We all know these people are wrong. But that doesn't give us (or anyone) the right to make them shut up.

Why? If they are wrong and they are, why?

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 3,132]

>Why? If they are wrong and they are, why?

Because of the First Amendment. You have the right to protest abortion even if you're "wrong" and even if it causes a young woman considering an abortion to become upset.

[kallend 2,180]

Quote

Quote

The right to legal representation once arrested and charged with a crime? The right to a speedy trial if charged with a crime?

Just a question, Bill.

Aren't these American rights that apply to American citizens?

Amendment XIV, US Constitution:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

John, come on, that's the old constitution. Ancient history! They didn't have things like crime, or illegal aliens, or war back then. They couldn't have known what us modern people have to deal with.

[Lindsey 0]

We need Amendments. More Amendments to amend the Amendments! Before long we WILL be guaranteed the right to not be offended.

So BACK OFF!!!

:)
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Trent 0]

Quote

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

So is "citizen" different than person? Or is it different than "people of the United States"? Do you think that the founders just arbitrarily used "person", "people of the US" and "citizen" interchangeably?

Quote

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Right, basic human rights... who's saying illegals or non-citizens should be killed?

Quote

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How does "protection" of the laws" mean that someone who is just here, has access to all rights and priveleges of citizens? Do you think that illegal immigrants and non-citizens should get to vote too?

I think people on one side say they just want the constitution upheld in all cases... then go on to interpret (misinterpret) what is really written there.

Oh, hello again!

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I think people on one side say they just want the constitution upheld in all cases... then go on to interpret (misinterpret) what is really written there.

Actually, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding some of it. Put simply, the drafters of the Constitution used either "citizens" or "persons" quite deliberately, and the terms were not used interchangeably - also by design. "Citizens" is used to mean US citizens. "Persons" is used to mean all persons, regardless of citizenship.
So, "citizens" get certain privileges and immunities that are reserved just for citizens (for example, the right to vote); whereas "persons" (meaning all persons, regardless of citizenship) are entitled to due process and equal protection of the laws.

I try to be open-minded & not overly judgmental about areas outside my expertise. You may find it useful to do so, too.