<p>
[quote]
So they weren't people of the United States, but ENEMY COMBATANTS outside the continental United States are "people of the United States."
[/quote]
What? That makes no sense. No where does the Constitution say that it only applies to "people of the United States." The person I replied to was asking about the authorship of the Constitution, which IS attributed to "the people of the United States" - they who "ordain and establish" it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, it is utterly ridiculous that you take this tack now when you've been proven (yes, proven) wrong. Throughout this thread, you have pushed your own beliefs on others, insisted that they are right. Now, when you can no longer insist that you are right because a higher power has ruled you wrong, you take the tack that you should never have been judged in the first place - no matter that you deemed it reasonable to judge others. How immature. How childish. How hypocritical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does it in some way boost your ego to talk like that to an anonymous internet poster? </p>
<p>You take the Supreme Court's rulings like they are the be all and end all. What higher power are you talking about exactly? I'm terribly sorry but the only "higher power" I would ever take orders from unconditionally is God if one exists. </p>
<p>In Plessy vs. Ferguson the court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. If I was living when this ruling was made, was I supposed to bow down to the "higher power"?. This isn't math. I'm not a child that can't add. Everything is open to interpretation. Everything. Don't forget that beloved elastic clause.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does it in some way boost your ego to talk like that to an anonymous internet poster?
[/quote]
Talk like what? Point out that you are hypocritical? I think it's no different than you trying to tell others that you're right and they're wrong. Irony of ironies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You take the Supreme Court's rulings like they are the be all and end all
[/quote]
Until Congress passes an Amendment that goes against their ruling, it is the be all and end all. You can argue that it's morally wrong and that the law should be changed (e.g. Dred Scott decision), but you cannot argue that their interpretation of the law is wrong. Their word is law.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In Plessy vs. Ferguson the court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation. If I was living when this ruling was made, was I supposed to bow down to the "higher power"?.
[/quote]
Again, no. You seem to be conflating "you're misunderstanding the law" with "the law is just" when I have said no such thing, though I do think that it is just to treat noncitizens with the same respect as we treat American citizens. But I have not tried to argue whether or not it is fair, because it is extremely difficult to change someone's mind about that. What I have been arguing is that it is wrong to say "the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizens." Again, I have said nothing on whether or not I believe it is just. Only that it is false.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This isn't math. I'm not a child that can't add.
[/quote]
I realize that. I was using math to show you that not everything is open to interpretation. Apparently, while you aren't a child that can't add, you are an adult that can't make connections.
[quote]
Everything is open to interpretation.
[/quote]
Cause in point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't forget that beloved elastic clause.
[/quote]
I'm not. The elastic clause is in Article I, Section 8. Article I is about Congress. In fact, the elastic clause itself says "Congress shall have Power." It says nothing about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court supersedes Congress unless Congress passes an Amendment. They have not done so.</p>
<p>i donot think it is right. no war</p>
<p>I love the person above me...hahahahahahaaaaa</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really trying to get into NYU? Go try to repeat your words in New York City.</p>