191–200 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
I'd appreciate a summary of this 23 minute long audio recording ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even a circuit yet, this is a district court judgement. It is not a final say.
Hypothetically if it weren't appealed would it be the final say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular opinion: why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? If 100% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people of X country (Xians), and 0% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people from Y country (Yians), it seems like a pointless charade of political correctness to check Xians and Yians with equal frequency. I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians an…
Certainly an unpopular opinion, but perhaps the comment you're responding to means profiling in a different way? The way I typically understand profiling is that it's done to anyone who has features (skin tone, facial hair, clothes, etc) similar to Xians regardless of those people's actual origin. And since it's trivial to change your appearance from Xian to whatever-ian it seems pretty useless to profile in that way…
Sorry, I don't buy this at all. It is not "trivial" to change your appearance to look like a totally different ethnic group. You seem to have a pretty fantastical idea about the state of today's plastic surgery technology. You might try to hide by shaving and wearing different clothes, but you can't hide what your face looks like or what you skin tone is.
But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy.
Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.
But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
Good question. I was going to say "yes" but the Heller decision has made that less clear.
[EDIT:] great link, thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm...I thought they actually were a special class of protected people.
They'd like us to believe that. That's why they appropriated the term "the press" for themselves when it originally referred to a machine that was used to print. When 1A mentions "freedom... of the press", it's as one of a group of rights that apply to all people, not a group of different parties that have rights. That is, 1A protects everyone's freedom to operate a printing press, or use some other means of publishi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they don’t need to take you to court to refuse you entry and put you on the first flight back home...
To add to that, as a foreigner you don't even have a right to an attorney as long as they do not arrest you. So yes they can just send you back, it is in their capabilities and there's nothing the foreigner can do to counter that decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a silly (mis)characterization of what this is. Some rights are only afforded to the citizenry, and that is not inherently evil and is often the only reasonable approach. Other rights are afforded to everyone. The discussion centers around teasing out what the Constitution means when it uses person/people.
I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated.
> I don’t think it’s silly to suggest that maybe all humans should have the same protections against their rights being violated. Don't different countries have different views of rights? What happens when those rights are at odds? For example, Turkish people can't speak ill against their governments [0]. This contrasts with countries that have fewer restrictions on speech, like America. So I think the main issue is,…