• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression

Ahlevah said:
They can also be led to a detention facility
Click to expand...
Indeed, and they have a legal right to have the lawfulness of their detention determined.
Ahlevah said:
and deported:
Click to expand...
Indeed, and they can be LAWFULLY deported as long as the government obeys the laws of the country - not merely because Mr Trump says so.
Ahlevah said:
“As-salamu alaykum! My name is Abdul. I’m from Hamas, and I came to America to join the militia! Where is my gun?”
Click to expand...
Sorry, but "coming to America to join the militia" isn't a sufficiency for joining the militia. Please check the statutes.

BTW, the militia is required to provide its own guns.

BTW, you do know that Americans have neither a "constitutional" nor a "statutory right to either enter or leave the United States of America, don't you?

Any such right is the result of some "activist judge" who "made law from the bench" and said that the right is "settled law" and we all know what "settled law" means to the highest court in the United States of America - don't we?
True, you do have to change with the times. If you induce "the bad guys" to carry more potent firepower because "the good guys" have a propensity to shoot first and then find out if they can invent a reason for shooting later, "the good guys" have to up arm.
Ahlevah said:
I like walking. I have a natural right to walk. It is “absolute” in the sense that it is an inalienable, natural right.
Click to expand...
Only as far as public property is concerned.
Ahlevah said:
However, in civil society I don’t have an “absolute right” to walk wherever I want.
Click to expand...
See above.
Ahlevah said:
I can’t, for example, stroll into the Oval Office and give Trump a piece of my mind on issues of importance to me, such as U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO and his tariff orgasm.
Click to expand...
That is because the Oval Office is NOT "public property".
What is prohibited where I choose to live is "interfering with traffic" (read as "hitchhiking". If you are found walking along a highway here, the cops are more likely than not to give you a ride to the next exit (assuming that you can provide something that more or less resembles a rational reason for walking along a highway).

Hell, I once was hitchhiking in Quebec and the Surete du Quebec officer who stopped me ended up giving me a ride until we were just barely out of view of the police station that he was going to. Of course I was in uniform at the time and the policeman wanted to practice his English, so that might have helped me out a bit.
Ahlevah said:
Care to elaborate? What freedom is that?
Click to expand...
The "freedom of the King's Highway" is the right to travel along any public road without let or hindrance. That is why it is NOT illegal to "jaywalk" in the UK (unless specific restrictions are in place [and those restrictions are only 'allowed' (read as 'the people will only stand for them'] on the basis of public safety]). In the US you can be ticketed for walking across the street in the middle of the block in almost any town (regardless of the amount of traffic that that street sees) even residential streets at 10 o'clock at night when you are returning home from watching the hemi-demi-semi prefinals of the "Survivors of Dancing with the Stars of the NASCAR-WWF Monster Truck and Tractor Pull Mud Wrestling Wet Tee Shirt Contest" at your friend's house.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You, obviously aren't paying attention and/or don't know what "ethnic cleansing" consists of.
Click to expand...

Gas chambers? Death camps? The “Final Solution”? Forced relocations and massacres of Jews on Arab lands while every fifth Israeli is an Arab? Certainly, no one has a better idea of what constitutes “ethnic cleansing” than a Jew.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Of course, Mr Trump is in favor of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, but his motives are purely financial so that's OK - right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don’t think forced relocations to accommodate “Trump Gaza” is going pass muster when it comes to international law, but Israel was accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing long before the developer from Queens came up with his proposal.

TU Curmudgeon said:
It also depends on how "civil society" defines "proper behaviour".
Click to expand...

Yes, each society sets its own set of rules. It makes sense for them to conform to cultural norms. Problems tend to occur when people in one society attempt to force their norms on another.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Except when Mr Trump says that they aren't - as your posts indicate you believe.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution says they’re entitled to due process of law even when Trump says they aren’t. The courts will eventually either get him on the right page, or Democrats will roast Republicans at the ballot box. He is overplaying his hand, as Obama did in his first term with the ACA, where he lost 63 seats and control of the House. He ultimately won re-election in 2012, but largely governed administratively by executive order. Trump is done in four years regardless.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Yep and simply saying it automatically makes any male between the lower and upper age limits for "the militia" a member of "the militia"
Click to expand...

Unless you can cite case law saying otherwise, it does not. People
who do not conform to requirements for naturalization under the Immigration and Nationality Act would not be considered members of the unorganized militia. Under 10 U.S. Code § 246, they must have made a “declaration of intention” to become U.S. citizens, and Congress defined what that meant under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Sorry, but "coming to America to join the militia" isn't a sufficiency for joining the militia. Please check the statutes.
Click to expand...

You said saying your intent to become a citizen would suffice for an illegal alien to be considered a member of the “unorganized militia.” Congress defined under federal law what a “declaration of intention” is, and it’s a formal, written application to the government, not a simple statement to any government official:



TU Curmudgeon said:
BTW, the militia is required to provide its own guns.
Click to expand...

Members of the “organized militia,” which today includes the National Guard, would be issued weapons. Members of the “unorganized militia,” including members of private militias such as those that would later be incorporated into the Continental Army during the American Revolution, normally provide their own weapons, or they simply serve as a manpower reserve.

TU Curmudgeon said:
BTW, you do know that Americans have neither a "constitutional" nor a "statutory right to either enter or leave the United States of America, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we do, and if the government attempts to deny either it needs to follow a judicial process to explain why it’s denying it.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Any such right is the result of some "activist judge" who "made law from the bench" and said that the right is "settled law" and we all know what "settled law" means to the highest court in the United States of America - don't we?
Click to expand...

No, judges don’t grant natural rights, such as the right to walk (if able) or defend one’s life (if able) from a criminal. Likewise, they can’t deny them through judicial fiat, at least from a moral standpoint. That’s why they’re called “inalienable rights.”


Which came first? The bank robber or drug dealer with a Glock or Sig with a high-capacity magazine, or the cop or FBI agent who ditched his Smith & Wesson revolver for his own semi-automatic sidearm because he was outgunned by the bad guys? A criminal
doesn’t need an incentive to carry the most effective weapon he can. And I certainly would not want to assume he’s going to choose to handicap himself for my benefit in a gunfight.

TU Curmudgeon said:
That is because the Oval Office is NOT "public property".
Click to expand...

It is owned by the public, but there are rational reasons for limiting public access to it.


I always give priority to pedestrians. Even if they want to “jaywalk,” I’ll stop for them if they appear to want to cross. And I’ve never met someone who complained about being given a ticket for jaywalking.
 
Ahlevah said:
Gas chambers? Death camps? The “Final Solution”? Forced relocations and massacres of Jews on Arab lands while every fifth Israeli is an Arab? Certainly, no one has a better idea of what constitutes “ethnic cleansing” than a Jew.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, there is no need for any of those for there to be an ethnic cleansing.

But, you knew that when you wrote - didn't you.
That's because the Israelis have been slow walking the ethnic cleansing until they found a President of the United States of America who would support it (provided that they promised him that there would be lots and lots of money in it for him personally).
Ahlevah said:
Yes, each society sets its own set of rules. It makes sense for them to conform to cultural norms. Problems tend to occur when people in one society attempt to force their norms on another.
Click to expand...
But that's 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way'. It used to be "The BRITISH Way" and it used to be "The FRENCH Way" and it used to be "The SPANISH Way" and it used to be "The PORTUGUESE Way" and it used to be the way of lots of other countries too. But now it's just 'The ***A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N*** Way'.
Mr Trump doesn't appear to think so. He is telling everyone that he is serious about being President for more than two terms, and a repeal of section (s) of 61 Stat 380 would provide a means of doing that. That repeal could be easily inserted as a sub-sub-sub-sub clause to some "MUST PASS" legislation and then it would only require finding two people who would be willing to run for office and then resign if paid enough money to set up the ascention of The Speaker (who need not be an elected person at all) to the -throne- Presidency.
That applies only to those who are permanent residents who want to become US citizens.

The USCIS website clearly states "Use this form if you are a permanent resident and want to declare your intent to become a U.S. citizen.".

That has absolutely no application to anyone who is NOT a "permanent resident".

Admittedly Congress may have thought that it had intended to do so, but it didn't. BTW, in accordance with "TrumpLaw", for the USCIS to "mandate" that a declaration of intent to become a citizen can ONLY be made in one manner is an unconstitutional delegation of delegated power and has to be stopped. Congress has to pass a law that states specifically "A person who wishes to make a declaration of their intent to become an American citizenship shall do so ONLY through the means of the correct and full completion of the form attached hereto as 'Annex A'."
 
This 9s an old notion that is important. It encompasses net neutrality issues among other things. Part of net neutrality is equal access by end users to content. Congress ordered broadband be made ubiquitous back in the 90’s. The Ma Bells slapped an FCC approved fee on landline phones the collected on to this day. The rolled that money into their general funds and used it for things for other than bringing things like FiOS into rural areas.

Someone should have gone to pris on behind that. It was theft by fraud.

Anyway, this case is important as if the 5th Circuit is allowed to stand in this Congress will be limited to set standards by policy by which government agencies achieve the aims assigned to them. It will make creating and management of these agencies and their being made accountable for the functions they are charged with much more difficult.
 
No federal legislation has specifically mandated that form in that exact form as being necessary. According to "TrumpLaw" that means that any purported "mandate" for the use of such a form is unconstitutional.
Yep, and they are fined if they don't provide the stuff on the kit list.
Ahlevah said:
Yeah, we do, and if the government attempts to deny either it needs to follow a judicial process to explain why it’s denying it.
Click to expand...
Do you want to reconsider that statement. You are going against the words and deeds of **T*H*E** **P*R*E*S*I*D*E*N*T** and such anti-state thought crimes will be persecuted to the fullest extent.
The right to either enter or leave a country is NOT a "natural right".
Ahlevah said:
Which came first? The bank robber or drug dealer with a Glock or Sig with a high-capacity magazine, or the cop or FBI agent who ditched his Smith & Wesson revolver for his own semi-automatic sidearm because he was outgunned by the bad guys?
Click to expand...
A good question and much along the lines of "Who hit back after being hit back first?".
Ahlevah said:
A criminal doesn’t need an incentive to carry the most effective weapon he can.
Click to expand...
Make that "that he believes he is likely to require" and you have a deal.
Ahlevah said:
And I certainly would not want to assume he’s going to choose to handicap himself for my benefit in a gunfight.
Click to expand...
Given that the average criminal is only slightly less accurate with their handgun than the average police officer is, they are already handicapping themselves if they don't practice shooting as much as you do.
Ahlevah said:
It is owned by the public, but there are rational reasons for limiting public access to it.
Click to expand...
"Owned by the public" and "open to the public" do not mean the same thing. Hell, "the public" OWNS all of the tanks that the US Army has, but you aren't going to get very far if you demand to take one for a spin on a sunny summer day.

At law, "private property" means any property (regardless of who owns it) that is NOT "open to the public".
Ahlevah said:
I always give priority to pedestrians. Even if they want to “jaywalk,” I’ll stop for them if they appear to want to cross. And I’ve never met someone who complained about being given a ticket for jaywalking.
Click to expand...
That the law is not enforced does not mean that the law does not exist or that it cannot be enforced - witness the law that Mr Trump is using to "justify" his policy of "deportation on accusation of sort of looking more or less like someone who could potentially be related to a theoretical associate of a possible supporter of _[fill in the blank]_ or who says something that I don't like".
 
Ahlevah said:
At least Trump trusts me to own a gun. Many so called liberty-loving Democrats don’t. That makes them hypocrites.
Click to expand...

"Take the guns first, due process later" - says the "liberty-loving" but actually just authoritarian President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.