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

Re: Please revoke your signatures from MartinKraff's keys

On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 05:19:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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:

>>>> 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.

That's precisely the issue. The standards of "reasonable" are
different for minors than they are for 'normal' people.

>> 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.

What it says is that he/she cannot argue that the removal proceedings
are being selectively enforced against him/her because of his/her
opinions and speech, thereby nullifying these rights for this class of


Reply to: