Well, while I do agree with Boonie to a certain extent, I also really don't care what Mr. Morgan thinks about anything concerning American rights and liberties. If he doesn't like it, he can simply go back home.
I agree.
Of coarse, he also has a show............and he's an entertainer............so there is that.
IP: Logged
07:00 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by OKflyboy: And if we're taking away rights, why not start with Brit that said some things we don't like?
Nobody is asking to take away Mr Morgan's civil rights. The petition asks to have him deported (i.e. sent back home), which is completely different. He can exercise his civil rights to his heart's desire, in his home country.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 12-29-2012).]
Far too many Americans are already willing to concede that the government grants their rights, not God. If the government grants rights then it has the authority to take them away. And if we're taking away rights, why not start with Brit that said some things we don't like?
That wasn't the part i was referring to, i do realize that the Constitution doesn't grant the rights, it formally restricts the government from infringing on those rights. ( i wont get into the god part.. )
What i was disagreeing with is that those guarantees do not necessarily extend to visitors or other countries and it only protects US citizens..
( and see post above, we aren't removing his rights to speak )
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:08 PM
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
. . . 49,000 people want him to leave the country. . . .
How many people actually watch him? Out of those that have heard of him because of this, how many voted in the Presidential vote we just had? How many of those voted for status quo?
For a nation that proclaims equal justice under law a founding principle, the United States offers a skimpy menu of legal rights and remedies to foreign citizens (and unlucky Americans thought to be unauthorized immigrants [1]) facing deportation. The reasons include systemic dysfunctionality in the administration of the immigration laws, the lack of affordable legal representation, and, on the most fundamental level, the judicial rubric applied to immigration cases that deportation (now known as removal) is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding.
This article will outline limitations on the rights of individuals in removal proceedings and explore proposed enhancements to aspects of the system designed to promote procedural due process. The impetus for this focus on rights in the immigration context is the report of the Committee on Adjudication within the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS),[2] on “Enhancing the Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Removal Adjudication.[3]”
On June 14 and 15, 2012, the Assembly of ACUS held its 56th Plenary Session, voting to adopt the recommendations (as amended) developed in response to the report for improvement of adjudications related to reducing case backlogs, improvements in the collection and use of data about removal proceedings, increased quality representation for individuals in proceedings and “making the immigration adjudication system more modern, functional, effective, transparent and fair.[4]”
Right to Legal Services
While foreign citizens in removal proceedings (respondents) have a statutory right to retain an attorney or accredited representative at no expense to the government, many are unrepresented. [5] Because removal proceedings have been deemed civil and not criminal proceedings, respondents have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel. [6] Their only constitutional rights with respect to counsel have been construed under the Fifth Amendment due process clause, so that if a foreign national is able to obtain representation, that representation must meet minimum standards of competence. [7]
Recognizing the need for representation in removal proceedings, Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (who is now also a senior fellow of ACUS [8]), initiated The New York Immigrant Representation Study (NYIRS), which reported in December 2011 that in the New York Immigration Courts (from 2005 to 2010), 74 percent of non-detained individuals with representation had successful outcomes, while only 13 percent of non-detained respondents without counsel were successful. [9]
Of those who were detained, the study determined that 18 percent of those represented had successful outcomes, while only 3 percent of those without representation were successful. Additionally, the study reported that 60 percent of detained and 27% of non-detained respondents were without counsel during removal proceedings.
Unfortunately, there is no safety net to ensure that all foreign citizens in proceedings have their cases reviewed by competent legal counsel to determine eligibility for statutory relief from removal. While the immigration judges are required to advise respondents if there is an obvious path to relief, [10] the Immigration Courts’ immense dockets ensure that the opportunity for the court to uncover information suggesting possible relief is very limited. [11] Without the assistance of a practitioner well versed in the nuances of removal proceedings and applications for relief, in complex cases the respondent simply would not have the knowledge and ability to present an adequate claim for relief from removal.
In an effort to better inform the public, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) have disseminated brochures and hosted “Know Your Rights” presentations for foreign nationals, especially those in detention facilities. [12] With respect to counsel, the ILRC flyer advises foreign nationals who are arrested to “Insist on talking with a legal representative. If you do not have a legal representative, you can ask the Immigration Service for a list of free or low-cost lawyers.” [13] Service of a list of free or low-cost lawyers is mandated in the opening of removal proceedings. [14]
What the list and brochures do not address, however, is the lack of capacity these free or low-cost lawyers have to represent or otherwise assist the massive number of individuals in proceedings. Even if a detention facility provides a list of no-fee or low-cost representatives to its occupants, the likelihood of their finding assistance is minimal. According to the NYIRS, less than 10 percent of represented non-detained and less than 40 percent of represented detained foreign nationals have counsel from non-profits, pro bono attorneys and law school clinics. [15]
This means that, at least in New York, the vast majority of respondents who are represented pay for attorney services. This in turn indicates that without the ability to pay an attorney, the likelihood of finding representation is very low. Given the estimated 400,000 foreign nationals expected to be deported in 2012, [16] a huge population will be self-represented this year and as a result likely removed from the United States.
Moreover, the quality of the representation that is available has suffered because of the common combination of flat rather than hourly fees and high-volume caseloads of immigration lawyers who may take on more work than they can competently handle.[17] Worse yet, there is little recourse for foreign nationals who are mistreated in this context. [18]
Under the framework spelled out in Lozada v. INS, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff’d, Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), to pursue reversal of a removal order based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the respondent must file a motion with an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts, provide proper notice to the prior counsel of the ineffective assistance claim and indicate to the Court whether a complaint has been filed with disciplinary authorities (and if not, provide a justification).
Additionally, the respondent must prove that the ineffective assistance created a fundamental unfairness, substantially prejudicing the case. These requirements for appealing an adverse decision based on attorney incompetence are burdensome and tortuous, especially for a pro se litigant.
Not surprisingly, the ACUS recommendations recognize the lack of fairness in this system: “Another challenge identified is the lack of adequate representation in removal proceedings, which can have a host of negative repercussions, including delays, questionable fairness, increased cost of adjudicating cases, and risk of abuse and exploitation.” [19]
To address these concerns the ACUS Committee recommended [20] the following measures:
Increase federal funding for legal representation for respondents.
Prioritize funds for the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Office of Legal Access Programs run by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the U.S. Department of Justice agency responsible for Immigration Court proceedings, appellate reviews and other administrative adjudications and functions.
Focus on accrediting paraprofessional programs preparing legal representatives to appear before the EOIR.
Continually assess the pro bono representative lists for accuracy and usefulness.
Develop a tailored, national pro bono training curriculum alongside pro bono organizations and providers.
Produce supplemental materials for the OCIJ Practice Manual explaining legal terminology.
Distribute instructions prepared by Immigration Courts to assist individuals in preparing court submissions.
Explore the possibility of making the Court website and instructional materials available in electronic form in the Immigration Court waiting areas.
Ensure that “Know Your Rights” presentations to detained respondents are provided in a timely fashion in relation to their hearings.
Consider making court dockets available to the EOIR’s LOP provider participants in the same manner that they are accessible to Department of Homeland Security attorneys.
Consistently aggregate data on detained respondents for use by the Immigration Courts and LOP providers.
Consider allowing limited appearances by representatives.
Consider supporting pro se law clerk offices.
Use the Immigration Courts’ contempt authority to ensure adequate representation.
Review procedures for addressing DHS counsel’s lack of preparation or other problematic conduct.
Develop educational and training resources, which may include pro bono partnerships and subsidizing the costs with fines imposed by regulation.
The implementation of all or many of these recommendations would be a step in the right direction toward significant positive effects on foreign nationals in removal proceedings.
Otherwise Limited Rights
For most observers, an orange-jumpsuited detainee sleeping in a 7’x11’ cell awaiting a removal hearing is more reminiscent of O.J. Simpson facing prosecution for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in 1995 than O.J. Simpson facing their family members in a lawsuit for wrongful death in 1997. [21] Despite the parallels with criminal proceedings in terms of deprivation of liberty, for more than a century the Supreme Court has ruled that foreign citizens facing removal from the United States do not have the same protections as criminal defendants:
The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; and the provisions of the Constitution, securing the right of trial by jury, and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual punishments, have no application. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 730 (1893).
Although subsequent legal and societal changes have tempered the language of more recent decisions (bearing in mind that the decision in Fong Yue Ting was issued pursuant to the xenophobic Act to Prohibit the Coming of Chinese Persons into the United States of May 1892 [27 Stat. 25] [22]), the fundamental theme persists. In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038-9 (1984), the Supreme Court discussed the rights that have been limited in the removal context [23]:
Under prescribed circumstances, in absentia hearings are permitted.
After the government demonstrates identity and alienage, the respondent carries the burden of proving the time, place, and manner of entry.
A decision of deportability need be based only on “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.”
Evidence of deportability must only rise to the “clear, unequivocal and convincing” level, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Miranda warnings are an unnecessary predicate to admissibility of voluntary statements.
Searches may be permitted incidental to an arrest pursuant to an administrative warrant issued by the INS.
The Ex Post Facto Clause has no application to deportation.
The Eighth Amendment does not require bail to be granted in certain deportation cases.
Involuntary confessions may be admissible at deportation hearings.
Thus, the ILRC’s “Know Your Rights” brochure advises foreign citizens to remain silent when stopped for questioning or arrested by police to avoid self-incrimination, particularly with respect to alienage. [24] However, the brochure also advises that in some states, a refusal to self-identify (at least by providing a name) when stopped by police is a criminal act. [25]
Although it seems like merely a consolation prize in view of the limitations on rights in removal proceedings, the Supreme Court confirmed in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 696 (2001), that foreign nationals have a liberty interest that is “at least strong enough” to prevent their indefinite or permanent detention. In that case, the Court determined that Fifth Amendment due process is violated by indefinitely incarcerating a foreign citizen who had been ordered removed when the person’s home country refused to accept repatriation.
Conclusion
Foreign nationals defending their liberty in removal proceedings are at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to individuals defending their liberty in criminal proceedings. Not only are their constitutional protections circumscribed by interpretation, but their procedural safeguards are also limited by statute. Accordingly, at the very least, the recommendations of ACUS to improve the quality and availability of representation in removal proceedings should be implemented to better ensure the fair and proper administration of justice in immigration proceedings.
[1] See Ted Robbins, “In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens,” NPR, All Things Considered (October 24, 2011), available at http://www.npr.org/2011/10/...pelling-u-s-citizens (this website and all others cited in this article were last accessed on June 20, 2012).
[2] ACUS is an independent federal agency composed of government officials and experts from both the private sector and academia. It was created in 1968 and defunded in 1995, and then reinstated by President Barack Obama in 2010. See http://www.acus.gov/about/the-conference/.
[3] Lenni Benson and Russell Wheeler, “Report for the Administrative Conference of the United States: Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Removal Adjudication” (June 7, 2012), available at http://www.acus.gov/wp-cont...inal-June-72012.pdf.
[5] INA § 292, 8 U.S.C. § 1362. See also 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
[6] See e.g., Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
[7] See Barthold v. INS, 517 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1975); Matter of Asaad, 23 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 2003). But see Matter of Compean, 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009), overturned in Matter of Compean, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009).
[8] By vote of members at the ACUS 56th Plenary Session, June 14, 2012.
[9] New York Immigrant Representation Study Report, Accessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration Proceedings (pt. 1), 33 Cardozo L. Rev. 357 (Dec. 2011), available at http://www.cardozolawreview...RS&under;Report.pdf.
[10] 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2).
[11] See e.g., Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Proceedings, American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Immigration, p. E-19 (2010) (accessible at http://www.americanbar.org/...0.authcheckdam.pdf).
[17] See Kirk Semple, “In a Study, Judges Express a Bleak View of Lawyers Representing Immigrants,” The New York Times (December 18, 2011) (accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2011...gration-cases.html).
[18] See Robert A. Katzmann, “The Marden Lecture: The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor,” 11 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 3, 9 (2008) (also accessible at http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/marden9.pdf): “For the immigrant who is ultimately deported, the consequences of faulty representation are devastating. Unlike a person in the U.S. who can sue a lawyer for malpractice, or file a bar complaint, a deported immigrant for financial, geographic or other reasons, is unlikely to pursue such recourse.”
[23] INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038-9 (1984). For a more recent analysis, see Angelo A. Paparelli, “When Possible, Treat Immigrants As Criminal Defendants, Not As Criminals, http://www.nationofimmigrat...s-not-as-criminals/, April 20, 2012.
[24] See supra N. 13.
[25] See Id. See also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), upholding Nevada’s stop and identify statute.
IP: Logged
07:19 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Nobody is asking to take away Mr Morgan's civil rights. The petition asks to have him deported (i.e. sent back home), which is completely different. He can exercise his civil rights to his heart's desire, in his home country.
But do those same people support his "God-Given" right to speak his mind? That was the subject.
I mean, we are talking about words. What's next, books?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:29 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
That wasn't the part i was referring to, i do realize that the Constitution doesn't grant the rights, it formally restricts the government from infringing on those rights. ( i wont get into the god part.. )
What i was disagreeing with is that those guarantees do not necessarily extend to visitors or other countries and it only protects US citizens..
But if they are rights of man, not benefits of government, then how could they be exclusive to US Citizens?
IP: Logged
07:31 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
The First Amendment forbids the government from infringing upon your natural right to free speech. The Second Amendment forbids the government from infringing upon your natural right to self preservation.
If it's ok for government to restrict the manner or method of your self preservation, then it's certainly ok for the government to restrict the manner or method of speech you are "free" to engage in.
The problem is, the first amendment assures one the right to free speech, but it doesn't assure you won't get your ass kicked for exercising that right. Like anything else, just because you *can*, doesn't mean you always *should*.
IP: Logged
08:37 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
That wasn't a jab at all. I just ment any adult mind can see behind the curtain easily, if they can avoid decieving themselves by falling for what fits only their own slant. TV don't dumb down people, people dumb down themselves. Just like guns don't kill people, etc.
What cracks me up is over a million people could petition to send this dude home and that does not mean he's going anywhere. I want to say John Lennon had more people gunning for him to leave the country and he never did. Although in retrospect, he probably should have.
I really like where OKflyboy is coming from on this. People say he does not have the right to speek freely, but it is not granted by the US government, it is a right granted by God according to us. He has a right, as a human, to speak freely, and so what if he ruffles some feathers? Our citizens do it all the time in other countries.. like Romney in England last summer. He didnt get deported, either.
Can their be consequences for what he said? Sure.. but I bet it won't include deportation.
Speaking of deportation..Hey when are we gonna get that mass exodus because Obama won the election? Still waiting.. when they are all gone we can bring this up again and see how many signatures are left on this petition.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 12-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by tbone42: Speaking of deportation..Hey when are we gonna get that mass exodus because Obama won the election?
I too would be interested to see if people are really doing it..........or were just talking sh!t. I would think "kicking your country to the curb" is some pretty serious stuff. Not the kind of stuff you kid around about.
IP: Logged
10:47 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
14th, 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments clearly establishes the right to vote at the Federal level and applied to the states.
In theory I suppose it is possible for a state to give non-citizens the right to vote in state and local elections. I don't think that will ever happen in real life so such a discussion is purely academic.
You're wrong.
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
There is no federal constitutional right to vote for President in the United Sates.
Just Google "Constitutional Right to Vote" and it will bring up many articles, opinion pages and Congressional Members requesting an Amendment for a "Right to Vote" to our Constitution, because there isn't one.
Even the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore the majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
11:07 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: I too would be interested to see if people are really doing it..........or were just talking sh!t. I would think "kicking your country to the curb" is some pretty serious stuff. Not the kind of stuff you kid around about.
I don't believe they look at it that way (whether or not it really makes a difference).
They see it as their country kicking them and what they have worked and fought for to the curb.
When your home is no longer what you built it to be, then it's not the home you wanted or worked so hard to build and maintain.
Some were just talking, some would leave if they had the ability, some are planning on leaving. There won't be a single mass exodus but, if this country stays on it's present course, it won't be worth staying in and surely won't be worth fighting for. Those currently serving are noting the difference, those have have served are seeing it. Those who choose not to serve but live off the sacrifices of others deserve what they get.
------------------ Ron A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. So, what do ya think, are we there yet?
You guys are either being silly, or just contrary. This is not about your house. The comparison is moot.
If you are talking about America being your house, then it would seem from what I see you have VERY little to say about the rules of, and what goes on in, your house. Even when it comes to something as simple as who actually runs "your house". See how the comparison don't work.
The best your arguement could be is OUR house. And even then it's thin, at best.
But hey, I support free speech, weather I want to hear it or not. I just turn away if I didn't want to hear it.
That church that flaps it's gums at funerals? I hate what they do. And that funeral IS NOT their "house". But they got the right by law to speak their mind. For now.
quote
I mean, personal responsability, right? If THEY don't want to hear it, they can just plug THEIR OWN ears, right? Why do they find it nessisary to stop EVERYONE from hearing it?
I fear those that would silence it more then those that would speak it.
So, if you "just turn away", and recommend that others could/should "just plug THEIR OWN ears".. why are you upset over what the petitioners are saying?
This of course, is not a 1st Amendment issue UNLESS, Congress in some way acts on this petition in favor of the petitioners. The constitution is quite clear on that. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...
There IS the preamble to the Declaration, which alludes to certain "unalienable rights", but the US Supreme Court does not hold that to be the law of the land.
But lets 'assume' for a moment, that Mr Morgan has this so-called 'right' to say what he pleases under the premise that his thoughts and words fulfill the "pursuit of happiness" part of the Declaration's Preamble. Great. Does it apply only to him and his "right"? Not a chance, unless one is covertly or overtly in favor of silencing dissent and opposition to his words.
If one is going to allow what one person says, based on a perceived "right" to say something, then they must also afford that same "right" to anyone voicing an opposing view. I did not read the petition, but from what I've read here, I didn't see where anyone wants to silence anyone else. They just advocate that Peirs Morgan not be allowed here because of what he said. That's not silencing. It's almost 2013. A person can be in orbit above the earth and still have a voice heard anywhere in the world.
Am I in favor of deporting Piers Morgan? No. I think he's a moron, but hey--Morons Abound.
Am I in favor of silencing the petitioners? No. They're also morons. They abound as well, but I'm not going to try to keep my cake while eating it.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-29-2012).]
IP: Logged
11:22 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9484 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
There is no federal constitutional right to vote for President in the United Sates.
Just Google "Constitutional Right to Vote" and it will bring up many articles, opinion pages and Congressional Members requesting an Amendment for a "Right to Vote" to our Constitution, because there isn't one.
Even the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore the majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.
You are confusing the vote in a Presidential Election vs the right to vote. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by a direct vote of the people. The House of Representatives and the Senate are elected by the people. It states it as so in Article 2 and the 17th Amendment respectively.
I see you plagiarizer Wikipedia. LOL
If you are going to try to pass something off as your own words, try to steal something better.
IP: Logged
11:44 PM
williegoat Member
Posts: 19617 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2009
You are confusing the vote in a Presidential Election vs the right to vote. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by a direct vote of the people. The House of Representatives and the Senate are elected by the people. It states it as so in Article 2 and the 17th Amendment respectively.
I see you plagiarizer Wikipedia. LOL
If you are going to try to pass something off as your own words, try to steal something better.
My original post for which you quoted on, I specifically said "for President".
Again! There is no Constitutional Right to Vote.
IP: Logged
12:08 AM
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
And, even tho it is a moot question, I answered it. No one is trying to silence anyone. They petitioned to have him deported, not censored, have his tongue cut out, or his hands cut off.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-30-2012).]
IP: Logged
12:18 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
But was technically correct. Colorado did not hold an election when it was admitted as a State to select electors for President. The state legislators chose the electors.
Because there is no Constitutional Right to Vote, it was legal for Colorado to do so.
IP: Logged
12:28 AM
williegoat Member
Posts: 19617 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2009
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment 19:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Amendment 24:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Amendment 26:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
(my cut and paste, with citation)
IP: Logged
12:32 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.
There is no federal constitutional right to vote for President in the United Sates.
Just Google "Constitutional Right to Vote" and it will bring up many articles, opinion pages and Congressional Members requesting an Amendment for a "Right to Vote" to our Constitution, because there isn't one.
Even the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore the majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876.
Same reason a lot of people want foreign lobbyists and influence peddlers thrown out of the country--they want America to decide things for themselves without having to listen to foreigners spout their rhetoric here on our own soil.
IP: Logged
12:40 AM
williegoat Member
Posts: 19617 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2009
So, what you are saying is that the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, except where it is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.
IP: Logged
12:44 AM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20658 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
So, what you are saying is that the right to vote is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, except where it is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.
Supreme Court believe so and they are the legitimate interpreters of the Constitution and not you. So that clears it up.
IP: Logged
12:47 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Same reason a lot of people want foreign lobbyists and influence peddlers thrown out of the country--they want America to decide things for themselves without having to listen to foreigners spout their rhetoric here on our own soil.
Who's making them? Is it him saying it or them hearing it that is the problem for them?
Could he say it in a book published here?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-30-2012).]
1. Who's making them? 2. Is it him saying it or them hearing it that is the problem for them?
3. Could he say it in a book published here?
1.Same people who makes people listen to the petitioners. No one.
2. You would have to ask the petitioners.
3. Of course he could say it in a book published here (many foreigners have). Or published in China--or in Timbuktu. Getting someone to read it or pay any serious attention to it is a different story, as is getting anyone to pay any serious attention to the petition.
The petition btw, very much IS a 1st Amendment constitutional right afforded to Americans. The signers of the petition feel they have been injured by Mr Morgan's remarks and have exercised their constitutional right to air their grievances. The govt however (upheld by SCOTUS) has no obligation under constitutional law to act on any such petition of grievances--or on any other for that matter.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It does not have to be an injury perceived to have been caused or incurred BY actions of the govt--it can also be an injury perceived to have been caused by inaction of the govt. While a God given right may be debatable from street corners to Supreme Court benches, the 1st Amendment is pretty rock solid even today. The petitioners exercised their constitutional right--period. So, basically, you are asking WHY they feel they have to exercise their constitutional right to be heard by their govt.
Where's the injury they perceive you might ask? It is the govt's JOB to protect the constitution. Part of that constitution is the 2nd amendment. Had this occured in the early 1800s, that petition would indeed have much merit (and according to many-still may). Had a foreigner came here from Great Britain in 1810 and opinioned publicly that the 2nd Amendment should be thrown out or weakened, the whole nation would be in uproar, and the speaker or writer of that opinion would be lucky indeed not to be deported on the first sailing vessel back across the Atlantic or maybe even thrown in prison for some crime against the Republic. Many people take the 2nd amendment very seriously (I do) and frown on foreign intervention or attempted sedition to weaken the 2nd or any other amendment.
IP: Logged
01:44 AM
Christine Member
Posts: 1052 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Jan 2003
I see there was a question in the first post and it was a complicated and pointed question that I feel in the way it was asked it would incite debate and possibly intense arguments and it did just that.
I like a good debate and I can see so does the op and many others in the forum, there is not anything wrong with that. I am not going to digress and start going off about if a foreign national has US citizen rights or if we do or do not have the right to vote as I do not believe that was part of the question. I am however going to make a statement about the first amendment and the second amendment as I think this was the crux of the initial question in the first post and the thread starter.
I believe the two amendments are linked and if one is lost so the other will be lost, and that the second amendment protects the first. If you look at world history every nation, monarchy or other leadership that disarmed their citizens this act was soon followed by the loss of speaking out and the last thing they lost were their lives. With the loss of these two rights there will be no speaking out against the government, anyone, or anything else and no defending one’s self against the government or anyone else.
So I am a big fan of both amendments, I do think it is a shame that some would try to take away the second amendment by using the first to incite, anger, fear and hatred, but last I checked they had the right to say what they want and I do still have the right to defend myself. I hope it stays that way.
Please be careful what you wish for as you just might get it and you might not like it.
I see there was a question in the first post and it was a complicated and pointed question that I feel in the way it was asked it would incite debate and possibly intense arguments and it did just that.
I like a good debate and I can see so does the op and many others in the forum, there is not anything wrong with that. I am not going to digress and start going off about if a foreign national has US citizen rights or if we do or do not have the right to vote as I do not believe that was part of the question. I am however going to make a statement about the first amendment and the second amendment as I think this was the crux of the initial question in the first post and the thread starter.
I believe the two amendments are linked and if one is lost so the other will be lost, and that the second amendment protects the first. If you look at world history every nation, monarchy or other leadership that disarmed their citizens this act was soon followed by the loss of speaking out and the last thing they lost were their lives. With the loss of these two rights there will be no speaking out against the government, anyone, or anything else and no defending one’s self against the government or anyone else.
So I am a big fan of both amendments, I do think it is a shame that some would try to take away the second amendment by using the first to incite, anger, fear and hatred, but last I checked they had the right to say what they want and I do still have the right to defend myself. I hope it stays that way.
Please be careful what you wish for as you just might get it and you might not like it.
Just to be clear, when I said:
quote
This of course, is not a 1st Amendment issue UNLESS, Congress in some way acts on this petition in favor of the petitioners. The constitution is quite clear on that. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...
I was in fact (as indicated by my quote above) referring to the free speech part.
On a side note, after reading every post here, it is refreshing to see a few new converts. Some, who have previously disavowed most or all religion have suddenly felt the touch of the Lord's hand on their heart--or at least to the extent that He exists, considering how many have mentioned free speech is a God ordained right versus a constitutionally guaranteed right. Hallelujah and Amen Brothers! See ya all in church tomorrow..
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-30-2012).]
IP: Logged
03:20 AM
Christine Member
Posts: 1052 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: Jan 2003
maryjane, I was hoping you would not think I in any way was referring to anything you posted, as you were the last to post. I just happened to finish typing my opinion and post right after you posted. I agree with 90% of your posts just so you know my post was not directed at you or any particular person that posted in this thread I just felt the thread was getting off topic and I also felt compelled to speak my mind and that was all.
The First Amendment forbids the government from infringing upon your natural right to free speech. The Second Amendment forbids the government from infringing upon your natural right to self preservation.
If it's ok for government to restrict the manner or method of your self preservation, then it's certainly ok for the government to restrict the manner or method of speech you are "free" to engage in.
Both are already restricted. It's only a matter of how much restriction.
IP: Logged
09:30 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Many people take the 2nd amendment very seriously (I do) and frown on foreign intervention or attempted sedition to weaken the 2nd or any other amendment.
Sedition - The card blanch of every Dictator that ever twisted a thumbscrew.
IP: Logged
10:07 AM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
)
