posted on December 12, 2001 10:09:34 PM
No, I'm not a lawyer. Choosing, at pretty much the last minute, to be respectable instead, I quit in my last year of law school. I did pass both my Con Law classes though but, then, so did lots of other dopes.
posted on December 13, 2001 04:52:46 AM
reamond, you have XP now. Go stare at the peaceful picture of leaves on a fall day in the desktop choices. Stop watching those fastmoving electonic squigglies--they're making you crazy, not in touch with reality.
posted on December 13, 2001 05:07:25 PM
Well krs, we can just look at your posts and see who has lost touch. You're so ate up with Bush hating that you've constipated your faculties of reasoning.
You may want to channel your energies into getting out of the house more (or institution if you're allowed out) and campaign for political changes. If Bush can be politically effective, why can't you ?
posted on December 13, 2001 07:30:09 PM
Hardly, twinny, except perhaps in your view. But you're so simple, stupid really. Not hard to see why you would be amused. Remember how I engineered your three suspensions? Child's play for me, oh so frustrating for you. And how you tried to pay me back in kind! Energetic, but lacking any wit whatsoever, and unsuccessful no matter how hard you tried. So pitiable that I could take no pleasure from it.
posted on December 13, 2001 08:46:12 PM
Ken, you might have been reckoned with when you had friends to back you here, and moderators to run whining to. Now you're like an old toothless dog who waits under the table for scraps. It's sad, really. I see you as a great Shakespearean actor, reduced to playing community theater. You've lost your audience, and you know it, as evidenced by your lifeless cut-and-paste posts. There's no one left to bait, old troll. Stupid? Why, in your day, you could have come up with much better material.
posted on December 13, 2001 09:12:15 PM
Exactly, no on left worthy of my time here. So I'm heavily into another place and only stop by here for auld lang syne. You've defined all by yourself the reason for my lifeless posting here as well as having placed yourself neatly into the characerization you describe.
As to friends, why that's an odd thing to say. I've never felt that I had one, never wanted any in truth, and have always posted accordingly -- without social influences. Now if sometimes a poster here or there comes along for a bask and a ride it's only because they are as Ross would describe; losers, without lives. That's how I see your weak leap to be alongside the incoherent reamond above. For you too, there's no one left here upon whose shirttails you can hope to catch a lift.
posted on December 13, 2001 10:03:34 PM
Very sad. You think you are a rugged individualist with no need for friends. But you know you are merely transparent.
posted on December 14, 2001 06:37:40 AM
Hi mybid, twinsoft and thrinworks.
krs, pardon me but kwitcherbitchin so to speak. You have friends that aren't fooled by your pre-birthday-angst-ridden attempts to drive them away by claiming you have no friends (another year already?). Oh, and deny, deny, deny, but you've been a friend to me. Sigh.
Happy birthday, auld acquaintance!
Now, twinsoft, where were we last week... um I believe you were calling one of us sugar biscuits... that was fun I really enjoyed all that fooling around last week. Happy Hanukah, twinsoft, my RT sweetypie.
posted on December 14, 2001 06:47:30 AM
enchanted, how dare you entreat to me while with the same heaving breast make giddy love testimonial to my ex-arch enemy twinsoft? Really.
posted on December 14, 2001 03:34:55 PM
It's your contention that that falls under the headings of due process and equal protection? I must have been out that day.
posted on December 14, 2001 03:48:20 PM
What do you think a governemnt agency treating a powerless minority differently means ?
Imagine if Florida said all citizens who were balck or oriental had to have a 30 day waiting period before getting their license and whites did not ? How can the govt do this and allthe other things I've cited to non-citizens if they have the Constitutional protections you claim they have ?
One of the sticking points and the exception for the "suspect" protected class of non-citizens is that their status is not immutable.
I don't think you were ever in a law class. You didn't learn anything if you were. Are you sure you didn't flunk out ?
posted on December 14, 2001 04:27:14 PM
Also, before you go too far in the wrong direction and can't get back, let's remind ourselves of this - What is legal isn't always Constitutional, and even things that were done by law, and declared Constitutional by the Supreme court, might not be Constitutional.
You're going way out on a limb by equating a legal action by the sate of Florida as proof of Constitutionality, that's not an argument that would be acceptble at even a high-school level. The Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. BOE cases, and the time in between them, is an example most of us are familiar with, even before college.
posted on December 14, 2001 04:40:12 PMenchanted, I'm available. It's over between me and Rawbunzel. Usually when the woman says, "My husband is a gun collector," it's time to move on. Happy holidays to you too.
posted on December 14, 2001 06:21:25 PM
It is not out on a limb. The Supreme Court has already allowed states to discriminate in this fashion. See my post on the subject with Supreme Court citations. The Court has allowed states to deny aliens jobs as school teachers, police, etc., the Congress disallowed aliens medicare benefits until they had worked at least 5 years, where a citizen is in the medicare system immediately.
I am can find no reason why the S Court with strike down Florida's law.
What is declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court is Constitutional, until and unless the Supreme Court finds otherwise. There is no higher authority for applying the document, not Cogress, not the President,not the states, not the electorate. The only alternative is a Constitutional amendment, or bringing the contraversy back to the Court when enough faces change. But while the ruling is in force, it is the suprmeme law of the land,of this there is no doubt.
posted on December 14, 2001 06:34:39 PM
"How can the govt do this and allthe other things I've cited to non-citizens if they have the Constitutional protections you claim they have ?"
Well, see, that's just a dumb thing to say. If you look at actions taken under the color of law, as in the Florida action you've cited, and equate that with a proof of Constitutionality, you've completely erased Constitutional law. Why would any case ever be brought to court on a Constitutional basis? That the government has taken the action should prove, by your reasoning, its Constitutionality.
You've moved so far off of square one, that your asseration that "I am can find no reason why the S Court with strike down Florida's law." isn't discussable.
posted on December 14, 2001 07:33:14 PM
Yor're confusing what is reviewable by the Court and what is the ruling and analysis of the Court. The Court will do an equal protection or due process analysis of the right in question, but this does not mean because it is reviewed under the analysis the rights must exist. The Court found in all the cited cases that the rights do not exist as compared to citizens. In the free public education case, the Court as much as said that Texas may be able to deny alien children free public education if the Congress so states.
A contraversy isn't "constitutional" because the Court decides to review it, it is the Court's ruling that states whether the law offends the Constitution or not or if the right exists for the petitioner, not the review itself.
All of the examples I cited are not merely "state laws", but state laws reviewed by the Supreme Court and found the discrimantion in question against aliens in each particular case does not offend the Constitution, and rights that a citizen would have do not exist for the alien in these cases. That means that had the same deprivation of rights been denied by the state towards a citizen, it would have been struck down as unconstitutional.
As a citizen, you can be a public school teacher or a policeman, in some states an alien can not because of no other reason but their status as an alien. This would be similar to the state saying you can not be a public school teacher or policeman because of your status as a Catholic. This discrimination towards equal treatment is permitted because the alien does not enjoy the same protected Constitutional rights that citizens do.
posted on December 14, 2001 07:50:36 PM
Here is yet another example in the link below. The alien employees were arrested and may be deported. If the employees were citizens, they would have been fired, and probably not prosecuted - it depends on the language of the disclosure.
If an alien breaks the law, he/she is subject to immediate detention and deportation handled through INS administrative processes. They do not have the due process rights that citizens do. It is purely administartive and under the authority of Congress to handle immigration. Are these actions reviewable by the Supreme Court ? Just like any other reviewable question they can be. But thus far the Court has consistently found that the rights citizens have are not what the alien has.
I think they should all have a lawyer and bail/bond opportunities, and have a regular court under regular rules of evidence to prove their "crime" before they can be detained or deported. But that procedure is up to Congress, as the Supreme Court has already clearly stated.
posted on December 14, 2001 10:15:24 PM
Enchanted..you FLOOZIE! How dare you dangle string in front of my little Pooter !I thought we were friends.....Hmppppfh.
Twinsoft, Pooter. Surely you are more manly than that? Driven off by the mere mention of a husband with guns? I never. And I was so sure you were THE ONE. It's bad if your enemy is quick. It's worse if he is patient.
posted on December 14, 2001 10:38:03 PM
"A contraversy isn't "constitutional" because the Court decides to review it, it is the Court's ruling that states whether the law offends the Constitution or not or if the right exists for the petitioner, not the review itself."
I can't say I understand what you're talking about, but I suspect that makes two of us.
Here's a crash course -
A controversy becomes a Constitutional question when one of the parties claims a Constitutional issue.
Due process and Equal protection are not the same thing - don't use them as a bonded pair or interchangeably.
You've said that because the Constitution does not mention aliens, it does not apply to them. That's still incorrect.
Back up, get a basic understanding of what you're trying to talk about, and you'll do better next time.
posted on December 14, 2001 11:52:41 PM
Well if you had actually taken ConLaw you would know that Due Process is found both under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and the Court was enabled to apply nearly the entire Bill of Rights to the states after the Civil War via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause is derived from the same Civil War Amendments - it did not exist prior to the Civil War.
The Fifth Amend Due Process clause applies only to Federal govt action. Many ( it seems including Donny)had no idea that before the Civil War the Bill of Rights governed the relationship between citizens of the several states and the Federal govt, and not between the state and its citizens. The Civil War amendments enabled most of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the relationship between a citizen and his state government.
When it is a state action in question, like the one I used as an example, it is the Due Process scrutiny deriving from the Civil War amendments and Equal Protection scruntiny derived from these same Civil War Amendments that is applied, not the 5th amend Due Process.
If you were in ConLaw, you would have learned this by the 5th week.
You haven't a clue about alien rights, and at this point I doubt you could discern your own Constitutional rights.
posted on December 15, 2001 12:39:41 AM
Below is right from the Supreme Court's mouth. It states exactly what I have said all along.
Alienage and Federal Preemption:
1. The federal cases. In Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), a unanimous
Court upheld a federal statute limiting participation in a federal medical insurance
program to citizens and aliens who had continuously resided in the United States
for five years and had been admitted for permanent residence. Writing for the
Court, Justice Stevens explained that
[B]In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress
regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. [In] particular, the fact that Congress has provided some welfare benefits for citizens does not require it to provide like benefits for all aliens. Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests. The decision to share that bounty with our guests may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country: Congress may decide that as the alien's tie grows stronger, so does the strength of his claim to an equal share of that munificence.[/b]
Graham v. Richardson, in the Court's view, was fully consistent with this
analysis. Indeed, the federalism prong of the Graham holding [b]"actually supports
our holding today that it is the business of the political branches of the Federal
Government, rather than that of either the States or the Federal Judiciary, to
regulate the conditions of entry and residence of aliens." [b]Moreover, the equal
protection analysis in Graham involved "significantly different considerations. "
[b]Whereas the states had little, if any, basis for treating persons who are citizens of another State differently
from persons who are citizens of another country , [a] comparable classification by the Federal Government is a routine and normally legitimate part of its business.
Furthermore, whereas the Constitution inhibits every State's power to restrict travel across its own borders, Congress is explicitly empowered to exercise that type of
control over travel across the borders of the United States.[/b]
After Mathews do any limits remain on the federal government's power to
impose special rules governing the conduct of aliens? Could Congress prohibit
resident aliens from having abortions? From working as lawyers? Could it insist that
an alien doctor admitted to this country to practice medicine continue to do so
while she or he remains here? Is the "political powerlessness" or "immutable
condition" of aliens sufficient to give rise to suspicion of an impermissible motivation in these cases, or is the very concept of impermissible motivation out of place
in this context?
Can federal power over aliens be justified on the ground that the federal
government could exclude aliens altogether and that it therefore may condition
their admission on the waiver of certain rights? Consider Rosberg, The Protection
of Aliens from Discriminatory Treatment by the National Government, supra, at
334-336:
[/b]
The first part of the ruling states that aliens ARE NOT ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH CITIZENS, AND THE SECOND CASE STATES THAT THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVT DICTATES WHAT IF ANY RIGHTS AN ALIEN HAS.
If you study this issue deeply, you will find that the court was at one time leaning towards recognizing some full and equal rights for aliens. But that has vanished in the last 25 years.
I hope you're happy Donny, I had to go clear to the other side of the house to my library to retrieve the casebook.
