Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

deport piers morgan ?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
No the bill of rights does not apply to a citizen of another nation just because they reside in the states.

Yes it does. They don't even have to live in the states.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way

Actually, that's exactly how it works.

Edit: I feel there needs to be some clarification; The Bill of Rights does not discriminate. It is not limited to any one group. It serves as a notice of what the Government can and can not do to human beings. So no, the Bill of Rights does not apply to Morgan, it does not apply to any person, it applies to the US Government. So as a member of the Human race, on American soil, Morgan's rights have to be recognized by the Government. That means his right to free speech can not be infringed because some ignorant people decide to start a petition.
edit on 10-1-2013 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
We should deport Alex Jones instead


he should be sectioned in my honest opinion



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
But srssly, if someone enters the country legally they are given the same human rights as everyone else.


Nice try, but no, just because you enter a country does not afford you the same privileges of a citizen of that nation....and please don't confuse 'human rights' or what you are trying to refer to as 'natural rights' equal to 'legal rights'. non-citizens of the united states are not afforded the same rights under the bill of rights, please refer to the aliens and sedition act. Regardless, I don't care if Piers tells all young children that santa doesn't exist, he and alex are nothing more than another distraction to what is really going on.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by forgetmenot

Originally posted by pointr97
No the bill of rights does not apply to a citizen of another nation just because they reside in the states.

Yes it does. They don'e even have to live in the states.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way

Actually, that's exactly how it works.


and your legal source is?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by Dingo80


I don't get it?


haha odd eh? But even deeper...
He/she said "don't send him back HERE" But looking at his/her location he's/she's between here and there... So which here is it? hmm?
edit on 1/10/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


HE/she is a HE maryhinge a play on words hairy m###e

location location location UK



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by forgetmenot

Originally posted by pointr97
No the bill of rights does not apply to a citizen of another nation just because they reside in the states.

Yes it does. They don'e even have to live in the states.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way

Actually, that's exactly how it works.


and your legal source is?

The Bill of Rights. What is yours?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
boards.straightdope.com...Morgan is protected by the bill of rights read here.
I don’t like the guy but he has every right we have to say what he wants as long as he is in the US.

The petition that was started to deport Morgan because people didn’t like his message are nothing but hypocrites who are making a mockery of the constitution by disrespecting it. The first time I had ever seen Alex Jones was on Morgan’s show and I wish there had been a way to issue a gag order on him. I am very Pro-gun and Jones played the part of the lunatic gun hoarder and supplied the anti-gun establishment with a poster boy for their cause.

Here is a conspiracy to mull over. Alex Jones is secretly anti-gun and is purposely giving gun owners a bad name while claiming to be pro-gun. He did us all a great disservice with his outbursts on Morgan’s show. To be dead honest if he was my neighbor I wouldn’t do comftorble know he hordes guns because he seems like an unhinged lunatic.

I am Pro-gun I do not like Morgan and had never watched Jones until that interview and I can honestly say Morgan didn’t need to do anything because Jones imploded and looked like a lunatic. He didn’t do us gun owners any favors that is for sure. He is a freeing moron. I can say this much I have no intention of ever watching his show after the performance I saw him give he had the mannerisms of a grade school kid and that may be giving him too much credit. He is the same as David Ickle as far as I am concerned.



Note that the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty does not say either "citizens have the right of free exercise of religion" or "all people have the right of free exercise of religion"; rather, it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"--the form of the amendment is of a limitation on government power (Congress can't make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not just laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion by citizens). Most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states (and hence to local governments as well) through the process of "incorporation", which relies on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The wording here speaks of "any person", not "any citizen". (Whereas the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the Foureenth Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; but in practice the courts have ruled that the rights guaranteed here are pretty limited, relying instead on the Due Process Clause for incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights with respect to state and local governments.)

The Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause also uses "person", not "citizen": "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (By contrast, the various suffrage amendments speak of "citizens", not "persons"--you can't keep blacks or women from voting, but of course you can keep foreign tourists from coming over here and voting.)

Back to the original Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment says:

Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And again this is reinforced by the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which on questions of state deprivation of life, liberty, or property talks of "persons". So we can't just seize foreigners in this country, beat a confession out of them, and then lock them up or shoot them without a trial.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97

Originally posted by Superhans
But srssly, if someone enters the country legally they are given the same human rights as everyone else.


Nice try, but no, just because you enter a country does not afford you the same privileges


Nice try bro, privileges are not the same as rights... Your drivers license is a privileges, not a right. You get the difference? I bet you don't even lift.
edit on 10-1-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
so all individuals on US land is afforded the rights under the bill of rights?....how about you talk to those individuals down in guantanamo bay about a 'speedy trial'....and yes, guantanamo bay is US land, no different than our embassies around the world.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Lulzaroonie
 





Signing a petition won't automatically eject Morgan from the US in any way.


No, but it sure can make a statement that says Americans don't appreciate foreign nationals in the media telling us to get rid of our guns.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Above posters are correct




The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier. Personal Security (Life): (1) Not to be killed. (2) Not to be injured or abused. Personal Liberty: (3) To move freely. (4) To assemble peaceably. (5) To keep and bear arms.[18] (6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia. (7) To communicate with the world. (8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others. (9) To practice one's religion. (10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7] Private Property: (12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including: (1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded. (2) Tools needed for one's livelihood. (3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of. (4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.


constitution.org...

Freedom of Speech applies to everyone in our country, including non-citizens.
edit on 1/10/13 by ElijahWan because: link



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Freedom of speech by a non-citizen has been addressed, a long time ago.




The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams. Opposition to Federalists among Democratic-Republicans reached new heights at this time since the Democratic-Republicans had supported France. Some even seemed to want an event similar to the French Revolution to come to the United States to overthrow the government.[1] When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws, such as the Whiskey Tax, and even threatened to rebel, Federalists threatened to send the army to force them to capitulate.[2] As the unrest sweeping Europe was bleeding over into the United States, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and the fledgling nation seemed ready to rip itself apart.[2] Some of this was seen by Federalists as having been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants.[2] The acts were thus meant to guard against this real threat of anarchy. Democratic-Republicans denounced them, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists.[3] They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the highly controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElijahWan
Above posters are correct




The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier. Personal Security (Life): (1) Not to be killed. (2) Not to be injured or abused. Personal Liberty: (3) To move freely. (4) To assemble peaceably. (5) To keep and bear arms.[18] (6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia. (7) To communicate with the world. (8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others. (9) To practice one's religion. (10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7] Private Property: (12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including: (1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded. (2) Tools needed for one's livelihood. (3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of. (4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.


constitution.org...

Freedom of Speech applies to everyone in our country, including non-citizens.
edit on 1/10/13 by ElijahWan because: link


That is a good one, no, natural rights are not the bill of rights.....sorry, no, philosophers like john locke detailed 'natural rights'....but they are not the same as legal rights under the constitution. Non-citizens are not afforded the same rights as citizens of the united states.
edit on 10-1-2013 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
so all individuals on US land is afforded the rights under the bill of rights?....how about you talk to those individuals down in guantanamo bay about a 'speedy trial'....and yes, guantanamo bay is US land, no different than our embassies around the world.



They are considered prisoners of war more to the point they are considered as terrorists to the state they are not afforded the same rights and privileges as those who legally immigrate to the US, Of course you already know this and you are only trying to muddy the waters.

News flash nature, the world, and life isn't fair it is what it is though.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


Yes foreigners are welcome to make stupid statements regarding gun control here and we are welcome to sign petitions telling them how stupid they are.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
so all individuals on US land is afforded the rights under the bill of rights?....how about you talk to those individuals down in guantanamo bay about a 'speedy trial'....and yes, guantanamo bay is US land, no different than our embassies around the world.



Using human rights violations as an argument that non-citizens don't have rights in America is just silly.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Good point, but do we need the petition? Who are the stupid ones then, us or Morgan?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
Freedom of speech by a non-citizen has been addressed, a long time ago.




The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams. Opposition to Federalists among Democratic-Republicans reached new heights at this time since the Democratic-Republicans had supported France. Some even seemed to want an event similar to the French Revolution to come to the United States to overthrow the government.[1] When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws, such as the Whiskey Tax, and even threatened to rebel, Federalists threatened to send the army to force them to capitulate.[2] As the unrest sweeping Europe was bleeding over into the United States, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and the fledgling nation seemed ready to rip itself apart.[2] Some of this was seen by Federalists as having been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants.[2] The acts were thus meant to guard against this real threat of anarchy. Democratic-Republicans denounced them, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists.[3] They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the highly controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.


The Alien and Sedition Act 1) was allowed to expire LONG ago, so it's not even in affect, and 2) was an act that allowed the government to pursue action against people who spoke up against them. It has NOTHING to do with citizens vs non citizens, as you can read here.

www.ushistory.org...



In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.





Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell.


So sorry, no...it's you that's wrong there.... And as for what I was talking about with the natural rights....




The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.


en.wikipedia.org...

Also...Please brush up on John Locke and Natural Rights. It's his work which lays the foundation for our Bill of Rights....




To some degree, the Bill of Rights (and the American Revolution) incorporated the ideas of John Locke, who argued in his 1689 work Two Treatises of Government that civil society was created for the protection of property (Latin proprius, or that which is one's own, meaning "life, liberty, and estate"). Locke also advanced the notion that each individual is free and equal in the state of nature. Locke expounded on the idea of natural rights that are inherent to all individuals, a concept Madison mentioned in his speech presenting the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 1/10/13 by ElijahWan because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/10/13 by ElijahWan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
Freedom of speech by a non-citizen has been addressed, a long time ago.




The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams. Opposition to Federalists among Democratic-Republicans reached new heights at this time since the Democratic-Republicans had supported France. Some even seemed to want an event similar to the French Revolution to come to the United States to overthrow the government.[1] When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws, such as the Whiskey Tax, and even threatened to rebel, Federalists threatened to send the army to force them to capitulate.[2] As the unrest sweeping Europe was bleeding over into the United States, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and the fledgling nation seemed ready to rip itself apart.[2] Some of this was seen by Federalists as having been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants.[2] The acts were thus meant to guard against this real threat of anarchy. Democratic-Republicans denounced them, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists.[3] They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the highly controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

en.wikipedia.org...
A bit selective, aren't you? From your source (even though you did not cite it):

Thomas Jefferson, upon assuming the Presidency, pardoned those still serving sentences under the Sedition Act,[18] though he also used the acts to prosecute several of his own critics before the acts expired.


www.loc.gov...

Negative reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts helped contribute to the Democratic-Republican victory in the 1800 elections. Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802, while the other acts were allowed to expire.


While the center piece for your argument is outdated by a couple hundred years, mine (the Bill of Rights) has not been repealed or allowed to expire (though some try to run roughshod all over it).



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The thread is about the assertion that Piers Morgan should be deported over his views of gun control. If people want to debate how the bill of rights applies to foreign people in the US, start another thread.






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join