Davin News Server

On 2025-10-08 14:21, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:08:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-10-08 11:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:57:33 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-10-08 10:54, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:41:27 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-10-07 22:14, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:34:52 -0400, Governor Swill
>>>>>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>>>>>>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
>>>>>>>> be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>>>>>>>> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
>>>>>>>> the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't apply to illegals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It applies to everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Thomas Matthew Crooks?  Where was his due process, Dummy?
>>>>
>>>> So because individuals violate people's rights, the government should be
>>>> allowed to do so as well?
>>>>
>>>> Is that really what you're arguing?
>>>
>>> I've no idea what you're accusing me of arguing. For what it's worth,
>>> I'm delighted that Crook was executed on the spot without a lawyer.
>>> Fact is that due process can be very fuzzily defined.
>>>
>>> The idea that the BOR applies to illegals ignores the fact that even
>>> back when it was written it did not apply to non citizens.
>>
>> Incorrect. Simply, factually, incorrect.
> 
> Did the BOR apply to the slaves?

Not initially, but that was wrong and they fixed it.

> 
> Did the BOR apply to the Indians?

Not to those who lived in their own "nations"...

...but it certainly does now?

Why would you want to replicate the inequities of the past.

> 
> Who were the non-citizens that it did apply to?

The US constitution specifically uses the word "citizens" where it means 
to apply its provisions to just citizens:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the 
Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United 
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State 
in which he shall be chosen."

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of 
thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and 
who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he 
shall be chosen."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United 
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be 
eligible to the Office of President..."

So it's clear that those who wrote it knew what both words meant and 
when they wanted to use which.

I realize you know less about your foundational documents than a Canadian...

...which is a sad commentary on the state of your nation's educational 
system.