K: maybe, just maybe Clinton and Obama actually understood this thing
called the constitution and knew they couldn’t just ban Muslims like
45 did… you know because it violates the letter AND spirit of the law
and constitution…
Kropotkin
Through what means does the Constitution apply to non-resident, non-citizens? Was Obama violating the Constitutional rights of people in Pakistan and so on when he blew them up with drones? It seems like murdering somebody would be at least as unconstitutional as not letting them immigrate, as long as we’re applying the U.S. Constitution to people who aren’t here.
K: maybe, just maybe Clinton and Obama actually understood this thing
called the constitution and knew they couldn’t just ban Muslims like
45 did… you know because it violates the letter AND spirit of the law
and constitution…
U: Through what means does the Constitution apply to non-resident, non-citizens? Was Obama violating the Constitutional rights of people in Pakistan and so on when he blew them up with drones? It seems like murdering somebody would be at least as unconstitutional as not letting them immigrate, as long as we’re applying the U.S. Constitution to people who aren’t here.
[/quote]
K: it is a very complicated question with many moving parts…
did Obama violate the constitutional rights of the people of Pakistan?
I don’t know if Pakistan even has a constitution. I can tell you, regardless
if he violated their rights either here in the US or in Pakistan, I can say, it
was wrong… and I have said so before… that is the problem with this idea
of killing people before they have done something to you like in the case of
al-quada or ISIS, is that you have assume facts not in evidence… you assume because
they belong to an organization, that they must be guilty of crimes done in that
organization name…are all members of the KKK guilty of crimes committed by
the KKK, no, and they shouldn’t be treated as such, with that said, if they
advocate violence, they need to be stopped… it is no different than yelling
fire in a theater… you don’t have absolute freedom…and then another argument
can be construed that is different and defends the rights of those who belong to
the KKK and ISIS… it is a slippery slope to understand HOW we are to stop
someone who may or may not damage us. Or do we stop everyone who belongs to this
organization because they encourage violence… it is a very complex and difficult idea to work out
and much more complex when the person/organization is not in the US…
Do we assume we can defend ourselves regardless of where the person resides?
that is a bold and rather troublesome question… there are a lot of moving parts
in this question and you can fix on one aspect of the moving part and it will lead
you to say, yes, we can violate rights to kill this person and you can fix on another
aspect and say, no we cannot violate the right of this person and kill them…
and then complicate it some more with a look if they are citizens of the US or not…
depends on how you look at it
brighter minds then mine have been struggling with this…depends on where you hang your hat…
Kropotkin
Wait, so it’s Pakistan’s Constitution that matters? So Trump, for example, could ban all the Muslims from a country if that country doesn’t have a Constitution? I thought you were saying he was violating the first amendment or something.
Anyway, it’s a very simple question, and you wrote a lot of words for not answering it: To what extent does the U.S. Constiution apply to non-citizen, non-residents? Does it even make sense to say that Trump (or Obama or whomever) doing something to some guy in the Sudan is ‘violating the U.S. Constitution’ as you stated?
I don’t think brighter minds have been struggling with this. I think it’s transparently obvious that the Constitution is a legal document that obviously doesn’t apply to people outside US jurisdiction…