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: >> BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE >> 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. >> RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION >> 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 people. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
