[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please revoke your signatures from MartinKraff's keys

On 27 May 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:

> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 27 May 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane stated:
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:03:27PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Friday 26 May 2006 13:40, Joe Smith wrote:
>>>>> Apparently the US makes it very clear that US Citizens are not
>>>>> to be pestered at customs "OR ELSE".
>>>> If only that were true.  The Americans give me hell.
>>> Joe probably meant "pestered by non-USA customs".
>>>> Canada practically waves me through.  Last time I drove back to
>>>> Oregon, US customs decided that it was appropriate to violate the
>>>> rights the US constitution claims I have
>>> The US constitution applies only to USA citizens, right?
>> Wrong
> I've been imprecise, because - as shocking as it may seem to you -
> that email was not a thoroughly researched, serious email, but
> trying to poke fun at John. And because the imprecision better
> served the purpose of my poking fun. If we are gonna get serious on
> this, I'd say something along the lines of "the constitutional
> rights enjoyed by certain classes of people, such as aliens and
> minors, is restricted compared to what is enjoyed by 'normal'
> people". And in support of that, I'd quote decisions of the Supreme
> Court of the USA like:
> CTY. v. EARLS No. 01-332. Argued March 19, 2002--Decided June 27,
> 2002

        And demonstrate again that you fail to do proper research. The
 background: This is what the fourth amendment says:
     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.

        In the decision being bandied around, the supreme court held
 that held that Tecumseh’s Policy is a reasonable means of furthering
 the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring
 drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth
 Amendment. The searches conducted were held to nbe reasonable.

        Nowhere does anything in the case say anything about
 the children in question being or not being citizens, whish is what
 you are trying, and failing, to find support for.

> COMMITTEE No. 97-1252. Argued November 4, 1998--Decided February 24,
> 1999

        Residency and voting are the two things that are indeed
 restricted to citizens, and rightly so. ALl this case did was to talk
 about whether an alien unlawfully in this country does not have a
 constitutional right to continue to remain in the country when the
 authorities have, according to the law, have commenced proceedings,
 adjudicated cases, and are executing removal orders.

        If you are gonna say that the constitutional rights of
 residence and franchise do not apply to non-citizens, well, duh. If
 this is your argument, then I wish you good day, I have no desire to
 waste more time on such ..., well, drivel.

> Obviously, in our current moral framework,some restrictions of
> constitutional rights given to aliens are completely OK. Such as
> ... err .... voting rights?

        Bullshit. ALl this demonstrates is that you have not really
 read the fourth amendment language, and are spouting off on things
 you have little knowledge, and less research, upon.

> Some of the actual restrictions in place I agree with. Some others I
> disagree. I do think that it is a very dangerous idea for the future
> of one's free society to have whole generations raised in the
> understanding that searches of private areas by authorities without
> probable cause is OK. That's a tiny step in how you raise / educate
> a generation that will tend towards accepting a intrusive
> government. But then, I've been known to hold extreme views on
> children's right.

        Reasonable searches in public areas are indeed OK. My carry on
 luggage is subject to search any time I board a flight. My person,
 and anything I carry, is subject to search any time I enter a federal
 building.  If you think that these are somehow unconstitutional, I
 suggest you go and educate yourself on the issue.

The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live
ones. Nathaniel Howe
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: