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

Nope. I know what straw man/men you try to erect.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The photograph is not lying, the people in the photograph (well many of them) are lying on the ground. There are cops in the picture but the Black Live Matter folk killing the cops is in your imagination.Have there been cops killed? Yes.As many cops killed as black people killed by cops? Nope.Is killing cops right? Nope.Is anger by the black population against cops reasonable? Absolutely.But a small question Faith?Do you understand that a plain and simple reading of the US Constitution protects the Rights of the Black Lives Matter supporters to peacefully gather, associate together, protest governmental misconduct and even lie down on the tracks?

I guess I win.Maybe you need to cool off for a few days. Why don't you go on some bible retreat so you can cool down.

Are you now claiming that the peaceful protesters in the picture had killed cops before this? That is beyond the pale even for you. Crawl back in your hole.

That would be the evidence that YOU need to provide.

Well I guess that when you spend your days picking and choosing what parts of the bible to use each day, that applying that approach to the constitution would be just more of the same.Enjoy

Try your favorite fake news outlet.Enjoy

It's a complicated situation. There are outsiders who killed cops in sympathy with BLM, which isn't the BLM's fault, but on the other hand there are elements in BLM calling for violence.Black Lives Matter Hypocrisy in Cheering Violence | National Reviewabe: Black Lives Matter Protesters: "WE NEED TO START KILLING PEOPLE"; Calls For Trump's ASSASSINATION! (VIDEO) Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Therefore we should condemn Donnie for any violence done in support of his policies an rhetoric.Cool. Glad to see you will condemning racism.

Non sequitur of course.

So you hold BLM to a higher standard than Donnie Trump?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Here we go again on the lefty merry-go-round of false accusations?

Then why do you hold BLM responsible for all black on white violence or for anyone claims they are speaking for BLM or all violence toward police?Isn't that a higher standard? If not explain why.

"... hold BLM responsible for ALL black on white violence... or all violence against police?"I don't suppose you'd care to bring that sweeping accusation down to more realistic proportions?

This is a pretty good example of how the original meaning and intent of the framers deteriorates over time. Originally, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were no declared Constitutional rights for illegal immigrants. Then with the end of slavery, the 14th amendment was written to allow Africans who were brought here against their will to have a new start. They were designated as "persons", not "former slaves", to keep any hateful white people of the late 1860's from claiming their children, or wives who weren't officially sold as slaves weren't included in the 14th amendment. Then we have cases like you referenced, Zadvydas v. Davis, which were not crystal clear, open and shut cases. Here's the dissenting opinions, one of them by the hardly conservative Anthony Kennedy;

quote:

---

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the majority. Scalia stated that an alien who has no legal right to be in the United States has no right to release into the country that is trying to expel him or her. Scalia quoted Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent, in asserting that "Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will."[italics in original][2]

​

Justice Anthony Kennedy also dissented. Kennedy said that the majority disregarded congressional intent and then rewrote the statute. He posited that Congress gave the Attorney General the express authority to order continued detention, and added that the majority misapplied the concept of statutory construction, noting that the court could only distinguish between plausible interpretations. If there were two or more interpretations, then the court is bound to accept the one that does not create a constitutional issue, but Kennedy states that this was never the situation in this case.[citation needed]

---

Zadvydas v. Davis - Wikipedia"...disregarded congressional intent and then rewrote the statute." When we take amendments that were written long after the U.S. Constitution was established, bend and shape them a little bit, then add a court case with certain circumstances that can inspire a little sympathy and emotion at that particular time, then throw in a few liberal supreme court justices, suddenly illegal immigrants have society-burdening legal rights that are actually found nowhere in U.S. foundations or tradition, or in the imaginations of U.S. founders.But you say that's the "official answer", so that's the way it is and Faith and I are WRONG because we can't accept it. Is there a difference between that and the way that you and most everyone here can't accept the official answer of who the voters wanted to be president back in November 2016?