Questions based on a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution

You will note that Marc is being quite thoroughly dishonest. Carefully avoiding providing support for his original claim (and implicitly going back on it), raising the issue of foreign governments as a strawman and trying to frame the issue as dealing solely with illegal immigrants (when his original claim would include legal immigrants and Jar's OP dealt mainly with people suspected or accused of being illegal immigrants who should surely benefit from the principle of "innocent until proven guilty")As for you - defending rights granted by the Constituion is in no way revisionism. Your dislike for the actual Constitution does not change it in any way or devalue its legal standing. Lying rants will not avail you.

quote:

---

"Persons, houses, papers, effects" - within the U.S. maybe??

​

Warrants, places, things, within the U.S. maybe?

​

You don't see an implication that it was referring to citizens? And ~I'm~ accused of not being honest. It is beyond amazing.

---

People in the U.S. would include non-citizens in the U.S. Why would it be odd for the Amendment to cover them, the houses they rent or own, or their papers or effects ?It is indeed amazing that anybody would be unable to realise that.

quote:

---

Because every house they own or rent, every paper and effect having anything to do with them, would be illegal because their presence in the U.S. is illegal.

---

Perhaps you can tell me the law which makes it illegal for any non-citizen to be present in the U.S. To the best of my knowledge the U.S. Has a tourism industry welcoming visitors to the country, special visa programs allowing non-citizens to work in the country, universities that take on foreign students and even a special status for residents who are not citizens (Green Cards). You are telling me that all that is illegal ?

quote:

---

If a person breaks into a store and steals one thing and doesn't get caught, does that mean from then on that it's perfectly legal for him to steal anything he wants in that store?

---

How charming. If I visit the U.S. as a tourist or on business (my employer has a sizable U.S. presence) I can expect to be treated as a criminal and the protections afforded me by the Constitution would be denied as further crimes on my part. Presumably I would be required to go up to police and demand to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure ?

548 is before Muhammad was born. What is the correct date ?

So a lot of this number have nothing - or almost nothing - to do with the fall of the Western Empire.

Marc was talking about the Western Empire. And obviously the fall of the Eastern Empire is attributed to Islam. Although I doubt that you could call the conquest of the Sassanids a direct threat to "classical Christian civilisation"