Davin News Server

On 2025-10-08 15:50, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:07:23 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 you miss where I said "back when it was written" and you insisted
> that was incorrect? Are you admitting your mistake?
> 
>>> Did the BOR apply to the Indians?
>>
>> Not to those who lived in their own "nations"...
> 
> Huh?  You better rethink that..

Why? Because you were confused?

> 
>> ...but it certainly does now?
> 
> Did you miss where I said "back when it was written" and you insisted
> that was incorrect? Are you admitting your mistake?
> 
>> Why would you want to replicate the inequities of the past.
> 
> Why would you think I do?

Because you want to deny PEOPLE due process.

> 
>>> Who were the non-citizens that it did apply to?
> 
> Typical leftist tactic is to duck the question with out of context
> stuff.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That they used both terms does not in any way make it clear that they
> are not thought of as synonymous.

Yes, it does. Because words in legal documents have their ordinary 
English meanings (for legal documents in English)...

...unless the document itself provides a special definition for their 
use within it.

"citizen | ˈsidəz(ə)n |

noun

a person who belongs to a particular country, state, or commonwealth by 
birth or naturalization "

"person | ˈpərs(ə)n |

noun (plural people | ˈpēpəl | or plural persons | ˈpərsnz |)

1 a human being "

You think because you struggle with basic English, that the people who 
wrote your founding documents did?

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Do you always struggle so much in discourse?

I'm not struggling at all...

...but bravo for having looked up "discourse"!

Good for you!