posted on December 15, 2001 02:12:27 AM
Reamond, you lack substance in most everything that you say, regardless your convenient excerpting fom cases which in fact were not brought to the court to raise the issues you tender as truth. Not only that, you may not know it but the law is an entity which is continually in flux which for
you means that citing past rulings does not necessarily define current court views.
To help bring you up to speed, if in fact that is possible, you might consider these more recent Supreme court decisions for each of them in context show clerly that there is a basis in law for a person to say that the rights afforded citizens in this country also extend to aliens. Of course both may suffer loss of rights. You may, for example, lose your right to vote by conviction of a felony, and an immigrant may lose his or her right
to stay in the country for the same reason. In fact, anyone can lose rights.
Calcano-Martinez v. INS, No. 00-1011, and INS v. St. Cyr, No. 00-767
Janet Reno v. Kim Ho Ma 00-38
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS 99-2071
Zadvydas v. Davis, et al.
There has also been much consideration given to alien status of individuals and the various rights they have and may retain in cases around the country in th curcuit courts. Some of those cases are cited here for you and when you give them your attention you will find that they too acknowledge and protect the rights of aliens in this country in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land. Three of those are
cited here to start you on your merry way:
Zadvydas v. Underdown:
U.S. v. Montero-Camargo
In re Nai Meng Saelee
As to the issue which started you upon your odd and ill informed rant, that of whether immigrants, aliens if you like are afforded due process of law in cases in which they have been detained. The following decisions have held that section 236(c) violates due process by mandating detention without a hearing: Martinez v. Greene, 28 F.Supp.2d 1275 (D.Colo. 1998); Van Eeton v. Beebe,CV-99-16-PA, 1999 WL 312130 (D.Ore.
April 13, 1999); Nguyen v. Beebe, CV 99-340-HV (D.Ore. April 13, 1999); and Danh v. Demore, CV 99-1531-FMS (N.D.Cal. May 28,
1999). In addition, a U.S. magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation also finding the statute unconstitutional, in Chamblin v. INS, 98-97-JD (D.N.H. June 8, 1999).
I've also cited for you a number of other cases which serve to clarify court positions in previous decisions, as well as address other examples of instances in which the rights of aliens has been questioned and affirmed : Alwaday v. Beebe, 1999 WL 184028 (D.Ore. Jan. 29, 1999); Velasquez v. Reno, 37 F.Supp.2d 663 (D.N.J. 1999); Alves-Curras v. Fasano, 98 CV 2295 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 26, 1999); Reyes-Rodriguez v. Fasano, 99 CV 0023 (S.D.Cal. May 28, 1999); Baltazar v. Fazano, 99 CV 380 BTM (S.D.Cal. Mar. 25, 1999); Alvarado-Ochoa v. Reno,99-0470-IEG (AJB) (S.D.Cal. May 28, 1999); Aguilar v. Lewis, 98-99-662-A (E.D.Va. June 11, 1999); and Grant v. Zemski, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 9721, No. 99-2620 (E.D.Pa. June 22, 1999).
Now reamond, there's something that you do not appear to understand. It's that these arguments that you make are silly and wasteful of your energies. You are wrong. You have been from post one. But one of my oft used phrases is that you can never convince a stupid person of their stupidity--they're simply too dumb to believe it when demonstrated! This is not to say that you are stupid. I use the phrase for an illustration, and another, or several other words could be substituted for 'stupid'. You have been so far off track through this that it's a wonder to me that Donny has continued with you at all. I've never known her before to be one given to talking to walls. At least it's not mirrors.
Well, there's your homework mr. 'con-law' man. You say that you know what those notations are so go dig 'em out and see what they say. When you return, please think "LUCID" before you touch a key.
posted on December 15, 2001 02:32:10 AM
Well krs, again you don't know anything about authority or research in the law. LOOK AT THE CASES YOU CITED. Do you know what a Fed Supp cutation is, do you know what the authority of a federal magistrate is ?
All the lower court cases you cite are good law only in the districts where the ruling was entered, not the law of the land, and did you Shephardize the cases ? that is did you check to see if a higher court ruled on any of these lower rulings ? No you didn't because you haven't a clue of what you're talking about.
I can pull cases from Alabama to support a legal position, but they are only good law in Alabama, and only if a higher court hasn't overturned them.
My citations are the spoken word of the Supreme law of the land, from which there is no appeal.
Your citations are the hodgepodge of a rank amateur that doens't know #*!@ from shinola about legal research or legal authority, or stare decisis.
Nice try but your "research" is what a freshman in high school would come up with, only probably would be better done.
I am again having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
posted on December 15, 2001 02:40:39 AM
By the way the "excerpts" aren't mine,they are unedited tracts from Profs. of Law Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet's, Book Constitutional Law. They "wrote the book" on Constitutional law that nearly every law student is tutored under in the U.S.
Do you suppose that the law could be what the law Profs research of authoritive cases say it is over your silly citations ?
You're out of your league krs. You don't know what you're talking about and lack the knowledge and skills to figure the issue out.
posted on December 15, 2001 03:10:02 AM
And here is the Federal Preemption laws I cited in action from the article I linked to:
"The INS released nine of the Israelis, but held Hani and Behr until Nov. 27. The INS then issued an oral "order of safe guard" that the two should remain in the United States. No written order was issued, and the INS has set no schedule for additional hearings, said the men's attorney, David Leopold.
Such orders generally mean the detainee's passport is taken until the INS can escort the person to a flight home."
Now where is the due process here ? An oral order from the INS usurped any color of constitutional protections for the aliens. Why ? Because as the Supreme Court cases I cited clearly state, those rights exist if and only if the Congress or President allows them to exist, to wit there is no constitutional protections at all as we citizens enjoy them and universally understand them. A constitutional protection that can be undone by the Congress and President is not a constitutional protection. A citizen's due process right can't be stripped by an administrative agency. What happened to these aliens as evidenced in the article is exactly what the Supreme Court cases I cited say the legislative and executive branches can do if they want and when they want.
If there was any an advocate such as the ACLU who could establish true equal protection and due process rights for these aliens, they would have done so by now. The press knows who at least some of the detainees are and the ACLU would only need one to make the case and free them all. So why isn't the ACLU doing it ? It is because the have no basis in the law to do it. The ACLU has instead chosen to go to the public in hopes of exerting political pressure on the political branches of government to back off.
The ACLU also has learned from the cases I have cited and their own experience that a deportation order wipes out any progress they may attempt to make on freeing the detainees.
posted on December 15, 2001 03:42:45 AM
So, you don't know how to find actual Supreme court cases by their citations as I've provided them in detail to you. Done deal-you're full of it without them. You cite some professor instead, all the while CLAIMING to be citing the cases? That particular professor has just appeared on Lynne Cheney's list of un-Americans.
And what kind of dopey argument are you making? That, and I quote you "those rights exist if and only if the Congress or President allows them to exist, to wit there is no constitutional protections at all as we citizens enjoy them and universally understand them. A constitutional protection that can be undone by the Congress and President is not a constitutional protection"?
Well guess again Homer, because those very same rights ARE being stripped away from citizens today. It's what all the fuss is about, Seymour, or don't you read about that? You'll find out soon enough if you try to board an airplane with your tinfoil encased pickle in place in your pants. Yes citizen, you have the right to your codpiece to try to negate your prissy image, but woe to you if you wear it entering the White House. You'll be stripsearched and exposed as a joke just exactly the same way that Saud the Faux prince of Egypt will be if he tries to go there with his custume jewelry laden turban in place. If a law is passed saying that your computer, citizen, is subject to warrantless search (which has just passed) it won't make a bit of difference if your name is George Washington or Dudley Dooright. You'll be invaded without a warrant.
Given that, you're right you see? When aliens have no rights no one will, and then you'll have proved your meager and ridiculous presentation.
posted on December 15, 2001 04:19:28 AM
"A citizen's due process right can't be stripped by an administrative agency."
That's patently ridiculous. It's precisely because Constitutional protections are violated that cases come to court.
To point to the fact that an action was taken, and then to use the fact of that action to prove it was Constitutional is absurd.
"to wit there is no constitutional protections at all as we citizens enjoy them and universally understand them"
That's completely wrong. Aliens have Constitutional protections, from the same Constitution that the rights of the rest of us derive from.
The difference which the law sees, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, is what the scope of those Constitutionally derived rights are. The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, for example, applies to everyone - Man, woman, child, citizen and non-citizen. That the scope of those rights will be different for a child than for an adult does not mean that children don't have Constitutional rights. Likewise, that the courts have defined the Constitutional rights of aliens to be different from non-aliens does not lead to the blithe conclusion that - aliens have no Constitutional rights.
This is the jump that you've made and you've kept running from there.
You've taken the whole idea of Constitutional law and stood it on its head. It comes from the Constitution down, not from government actions up. Every time you point to a gov't action, such as the Florida driver's license thing and say - Look, a government agency did this, that proves it's Constitutional, you've put the cart before the horse and made superfluous any Constitutional question. By your reasoning, there would never be any court cases about Constitutionality at all since by the Reamond theory of Constitutional law, any action that a government agency takes proves its Constitutionality just in the doing of the thing.
When you say "Where is the due process here?" you've written it as a question, but treated it as an answer (you're saying - "I can't see any due process there, that proves that aliens don't have any due process rights.) That point of view is wrong.
The correct view is to treat the question as a question. The answer is either - they're being violated, or they're being upheld in a way that comports with due process protections, that you don't understand.
The question is not an answer in itself. That's another example of the way you jump over things you don't understand to arrive at a completely wrong conclusion and then batter away at it.
posted on December 15, 2001 05:15:52 AM
Unfortunately I don't see any Supreme Court designated cases you've cited. They all appear to be state and federal appellate cases, which don't rise to the moniker of "law of the land".
Do you know the difference between a state court, a federal district court , a federal circuit court and U.S. Supreme Court and their repective authority and jurisdictions ? Do you know how you can tell the difference between the citations ?Do you know the difference between substantive law and administrative law cases ? Don't think so. You're out of your league.
The Profs in my post cite, analyse and quote actual supreme court cases.
None of the "presenation" is mine. It is from Supreme Court majority opinions and legal scholars. I'm just the conduit, and not the Gary Conduit either! You'll also find that these profs and their law journal articles offer recognized persausive authority to courts and other legal bodies throughout the country. Opps, I have interjected another type of authority and you haven't got the basic ones down yet.
Were it my "presentation", it would be quite different.
See krs, the difference between your and my "opinions" is that we can not send the police, or federal agents or the national guard to carry them out. The supreme court's opinions will cause those agencies to make good the courts opinions into brass facts. That's why we have aliens in detention without hearings and the proposed use of "secret" evidence being legislated now in congress.
By the way, citizens can be held in confinement without a hearing for an indeterminate amount of time as habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invaision the public safety may require it" Art 1 sec 9 (2). The million dollar question is whether we have been "invaded". Which may be seen as a non justiciable political question. Lincoln suspended it. Bush tried to get the suspension language into recent legislation. But it is unclear whether Congress must consent to the suspension, or if the president can act without their formal approval. I don't think we want to find out what the procedure is.
posted on December 15, 2001 05:33:08 AM
Donny- these are not my interpretations, they are the Supreme Court's opinions. See the actual court quotation from the Supreme Court opinions in my post.
The court's opinions are explicitly clear. Whether you or I choose to agree with them or not is irrelevant. The INS will follow the guidance of the Supreme Court, not us.
" That's patently ridiculous. It's precisely because Constitutional protections are violated that cases come to court."
No, the cases come to court because an attorney believes rights have been violated and the attorney and client bring the case to court. The court then procedes to announce whether there has been a violation or not. One side is always wrong if the issues have been properly fleshed out. Surely you're not suggesting that judges bring the cases up themselves ?
You and krs need to see if you can get accepted and make it through first year of law school somewhere. I haven't the time and the salary isn't enough to attempt to educate you two further.
posted on December 15, 2001 07:02:49 AM"Unfortunately I don't see any Supreme Court designated cases you've cited. They all appear to be state and federal appellate cases, which don't rise to the moniker of "law of the land"".
Yes that is unfortunate, reamond, for it means that you are not only dumb but blind as well. The first four citations, Calcano-Martinez v. INS, No. 00-1011, and INS v. St. Cyr, No. 00-767; Janet Reno v. Kim Ho Ma 00-38; Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS 99-2071 Zadvydas v. Davis, et al.; are cases heard before the U.S. Supreme Court THIS YEAR! Those that you "don't see". The others, all of them, are U.S. Curcuit court decisions as I said when I posted their titles. What is wrong with you? How do you think cases come to the SC? Do you suppose that ALL cases go there? Or could it be that lower courts are able to make rulings in law which stand with the same weight of those heard before the SC? Hsn't your professor told you that the SC hears cases selectively and only when there is no further recourse available in any other court? You see, SC decisions are NOT "the law of the land" as you persist in calling them. The court does not write legislation, no court does that (discussions of the usurping of power by courts outside of the intent of the law of the land, that is- illegally notwithstanding).
If it's as you seem to believe it is why in the world do we bother seating representatives or even executive members of government? All we need do is ask the supreme court, right? Fine. In case after case after case after case, the supreme court has acknowledged that all of the people whether here as citizens, criminals, old young, immigrant legally allowed or not have certain rights of protection in law, that law being the constitution of the United States, and the various other laws of government both federal and state and those rights are gauranteed to everyone in some form or manner of implementation subject to the limitations as specified in their founding document and amendments, which in case you don't know were also not written by the supreme court. As Donny says, you have placed the cart ahead of the horse. The constitution implemented the court and it's not the other way around no matter how much or how long you continue to mumble that it is.
