Discussion » Questions » Politics » Right wingers SAY they want judges to rule on the Constitution as WRITTEN, but they're NOT telling the truth.
excon

Right wingers SAY they want judges to rule on the Constitution as WRITTEN, but they're NOT telling the truth.

Hello:

I've asked this question before, but it NEVER got resolved..  So, I thought I'd ask it again.. 

My right wing friends talk about installing judges who will rule on the Constitution as WRITTEN.. But, they're LYING...  Let's look at the 5th Amendment... For the purposes of this question, it says, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

THAT is how it's WRITTEN..

But, my right wing friends tell me that the word "person", means CITIZEN. I dunno HOW they do that, but they do, and they DO it with a straight face.. Let's be CLEAR.. A PERSON is ANYBODY. Changing it to CITIZEN, LIMITS who has rights and who doesn't.. Right wingers DON'T want some people to ENJOY the same rights they enjoy... That's WHY they change the meaning of words..

excon

Posted - October 25, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    It means any person.     They have the right to a fair trial and a right to be deported afterwards.

    Next? This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at October 25, 2016 10:21 AM MDT
      October 25, 2016 10:04 AM MDT
    1

  • 3934
    Of course they're not telling the truth. The Constitution was DELIBERATELY written in relatively vague broad language to allow for interpretation.

    For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that "citizens" or "persons" excludes women, N*gg*rs, citizens of Japanese descent, or Native Americans (except in the "3/5ths of a person" clause about the census).

    Yet, until fairly recently laws which treated such persons differently from White Male Property Owners were considered constitutional.

    So, we are forced to a narrow set of inferences about the true intent of "Originalists":

    1) They want to go back to a situation where White Male Property Owners were special in the eyes of the law.

    2) They are lying.

    3) They believe their interpretation of the spirit of the text of the Constitution is the correct one. They may be right, but the spirit of the text is NOT "the text as written", and therefore their claim to wanting the Constitution "interpreted as written" is bogus.
      October 25, 2016 10:27 AM MDT
    1

  • 2500
    And yet you gleefully sign your 1040, waiving your 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.

    No, the 5th Amendment extends to any human being and (for better or worse) any Corporation when subject to the Laws of the United States or any of the several States. That's the literal interpretation. I don't know any conservative that thinks otherwise. (Had it said "the People" it might well be a different argument, but it doesn't.)

    On the other hand I know of a certain Demoncrat that has NO problem killing a US citizen on foreign soil without so much of a sham appearance of "due-process", trial by a jury of his or her peers. No, he's arresting officer, judge, jury and executioner all in one nice, neat package. Don't need no "stinkin'" Constitution!
      October 25, 2016 10:41 AM MDT
    0

  • 3907
    Hello again, Red:

    Yeah, that president is a rascal, isn't he??  But, I'm asking about the Constitution..  Clearly, if PERSON means PERSON, Gitmo is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and must be closed..

    Since THAT ain't happening, I don't think your right wing friends think person MEANS person..

    excon
      October 25, 2016 10:53 AM MDT
    0

  • 3934
    I always find it interesting when Salty Herbert (or one of the other Usuals) decrys President Obama for enacting RAWF policy.

    It's never stated as  "President Obama is following (and/or expanding upon) the policies of his predecessor(s). Shame on him!"

    It's always framed as though such policies sprang from nothing when the Nig...er, Nazi Kenyan Marxist Socialist Indonesian Communist Terrorist Muslim took office.

    Curious that...;-D... This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at October 25, 2016 11:08 AM MDT
      October 25, 2016 11:07 AM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    Again, President Obama is not his own man? He's known for using Executive Orders to legislate so if he's continuing the policies of his predecessors that's his call, not those of his predecessors.

    As to your continuing to refer to Obama as a"Nig...er, Nazi Kenyan Marxist Socialist Indonesian Communist Terrorist Muslim" all that may or may not be true but none of your hatred towards him excuses his malfeasance towards the nation or his incompetence in the Oval Office. (At least I HOPE he wasn't being malicious in his very destructive ways towards the nation.)
      October 25, 2016 12:12 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    GITMO being unconstitutional is NOT a clear-cut call. Are the people being detained there enemy combatants that were captured during wartime? Is GITMO actually US territory? Has "Martial Law" been declared for that particular area if it is? (Lincoln selectively declared Martial Law for select areas of CONUS so precedent has been established for that.)

    But the real bottom line is that Bush has been out of office for how long now? Obama now owns that GITMO situation, for better or worse. The continued operation of that facility is on HIM at this point, not on those evil conservatives like you want to claim. Just like the continuing dismal economy and the crumbling healthcare situation. This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at October 25, 2016 12:17 PM MDT
      October 25, 2016 12:08 PM MDT
    0

  • 3907
    Hello again, Red:

    Above you said, " the 5th Amendment extends to any human being and (for better or worse) any Corporation when subject to the Laws of the United States or any of the several States."  Now, you say they don't apply to Gitmo, where we're CLEARLY prosecuting laws against the United States..  What's up with that?

    But, you bring up another point.. If Obama COULD close Gitmo, he would..  But, Congress, who controls the purse strings, won't let him..

    excon
      October 25, 2016 2:32 PM MDT
    0

  • 2500
    And you might well be right, if that 5th Amendment were the ONLY part to the Constitution; but it's not. There's that little proviso about defending the nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The enemy combatants held at GITMO have been determined to be foreign enemies of the USA by our duly-elected government, what with them having been captured in battle and all. (Unlike the American citizens of Japanese heritage held in US concentration camps without "due-process" during WWII by that bastion of progressive left-wing thinking FDR.)

    But given that they are considered to be "enemy combatants" maybe some portion of the Geneva Convention, to which the USA is a signitor, may apply. As you coyly like to say "I dunno about that Geneva Convention thing". But if you feel so strongly about it why don't YOU take it before the Courts? I'm sure that your law degree, the one that has the Cracker Jacks watermark on it, will be acceptable to the various Bars. Go ahead and challenge Obama, 

    Because it is now Obama's doing. It's not a "purse strings" issue. Obama had a Democrat Congress during his first term and he failed to take any action then on GITMO even though he and the other Democrats managed to force that con job of the PPACA on the country. Shuttering GITMO would have been an afterthought compared to that. So he LIED, just like with everything else he "promised". And at this point Congress has abdicated their "power of the purse" to him. So that BS argument doesn't fly. The only reason that GITMO is still open is that Obama WANTS GITMO to stay open.

    This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at October 25, 2016 10:12 PM MDT
      October 25, 2016 10:10 PM MDT
    0

  • Maybe I'm missing something here, but people will always interpret rules in the manner most advantageous to them ... It was ever thus
      October 25, 2016 11:21 AM MDT
    2