Illegal alien rights in the U.S.
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 14 May 2010 18:47 On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:14:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> Why 18 for full rights as an adult? > >In the US they don't get full rights of an adult until they are 21. > >I know, why are they allowed to vote at 18 but cannot drink alcohol? Why >are they allowed to fight and die for their country at 18 but cannot >drink alcohol? What are "full rights"? The right to be president of the United States, and the right for old-age Medicare don't arrive at age 21. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Alan Baker on 14 May 2010 18:51 In article <bmkru5929518ov2utg6h3rjhie02fibal9(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:14:35 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >> Why 18 for full rights as an adult? > > > >In the US they don't get full rights of an adult until they are 21. > > > >I know, why are they allowed to vote at 18 but cannot drink alcohol? Why > >are they allowed to fight and die for their country at 18 but cannot > >drink alcohol? > > What are "full rights"? The right to be president of the United > States, and the right for old-age Medicare don't arrive at age 21. Establishing my point even better. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Don Kirkman on 14 May 2010 19:42 On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:22:05 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <alangbaker-D1726B.15050914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >> >> In article <MPG.265789a89cab1ea1989f13(a)news.giganews.com>, >> BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> > In article <alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >> > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > We accept that children's rights are held in trust by their parents, >> > > > > and >> > > > > as a society, we've come to believe that the right to life is one that >> > > > > the the mother holds in trust until the child is born. >> > > > >> > > > You miss the point. The underlying idiotic premise is that at some point >> > > > a >> > > > fetus is a life only if the mother wants it to be a life. If she doesn't >> > > > want it to be a life, it legally isn't and can be terminated. If the >> > > > mother >> > > > wants it to be a life it legally is. For example, a person causing death >> > > > to >> > > > the would-be mother who intended on keeping the baby can be charged with >> > > > double homicide (murder, manslaughter etc). Never mind the fact that the >> > > > same mother could have walked into an abortion clinic the next day and >> > > > terminate the pregnancy herself legally. >> > > > >> > > > The whole issue is a giant joke. >> > > >> > > And if someone takes your child across the country to a new location and >> > > holds them there, it's kidnapping unless they do it at the behest of the >> > > parents, then it's fine. >> > > >> > > Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those children only >> > > get to make their own choices in certain areas as the reach certain ages. >> > >> > Are you advocating that the parents can choose to kill their children if >> > they want to, you know if the children become inconvenient or a bother. >> >> No. They stop exercising that right for their children by birth at the >> very latest. > >You can't exercise someone else's rights and you cannot give your rights >away to someone else. You need to go back and reread the definition of >inalienable. Or "unalienable," as Jefferson preferred. But since that's not part of the Constitution strict constructionists may be loathe to embrace the idea of "unalienable inalienable" rights.. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: Carbon on 14 May 2010 19:51 On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:14:35 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <alangbaker-098D4B.15001114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >> In article <MPG.26578a804076d8db989f15(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR >> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >>> In article <alangbaker-6A8B16.13053914052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >>> alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >>>> In article <hsk9t2$4e2$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" >>>> <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:alangbaker-33AC4A.12402514052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>>> In article <2DhHn.5812$0M5.1687(a)newsfe07.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" >>>>>> <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: >>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:alangbaker-BD19D6.12181214052010(a)news.shawcable.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fact: parents exercise their children's rights and those >>>>>>>> children only get to make their own choices in certain areas as >>>>>>>> the reach certain ages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quite possibly the most idiotic comparison I have ever seen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? >>>>>> >>>>>> You started by comparing to ways in which a fetus dies. How is >>>>>> mine different? >>>>>> >>>>>> Try and say something that actually addresses the point. >>>>> >>>>> If a parent gives consent to kill their child... >>>> >>>> As I said: rights held in trust are given to the child at different >>>> times. >>>> >>>> The right to life is given over at birth. >>> >>> Why? Why birth? What is the difference between conception, 24 weeks >>> gestation and birth or 3 months post birth. The child still can't do >>> anything for itself. >> >> Why 18 for full rights as an adult? > > In the US they don't get full rights of an adult until they are 21. > > I know, why are they allowed to vote at 18 but cannot drink alcohol? > Why are they allowed to fight and die for their country at 18 but > cannot drink alcohol? Because some people haven't learned that Puritanism is ineffective?
From: Carbon on 14 May 2010 19:54
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:44:06 -0700, dene wrote: > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2657136beaaf489a989f0c(a)news.giganews.com... >> In article <alangbaker-A1F417.00590114052010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >> alangbaker(a)telus.net says... >>> In article <7n_Gn.6403$mi.2229(a)newsfe01.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" >>> <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: >>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>>> news:l9rnu5dugg77jus2l08hs6ms20udi7bo9h(a)4ax.com... >>>>> This should clear up one misconception here. >>>>> >>>>> The fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: >>>>> >>>>> ...Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or >>>>> property ...without due process of law; nor deny to any person >>>>> within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. >>>>> >>>>> ...The Supreme Court has ruled that these provisions apply to all >>>>> ...persons in the U.S., without regard to race, or nationality. >>>>> ...Therefore, U.S. residents -- legal and illegal -- have >>>>> ...constitutional rights such as equal protection of the law and >>>>> the ...right to due process. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is the same constitution wherein we have uncovered a right to >>>> abortion. We don't take what the constitution actually says >>>> literally anymore. >>> >>> Your constitution makes it very clear on the subject of rights that >>> it was never providing a definitive and exhaustive list of all the >>> rights that people possess. >>> >>>> Glad I had a chance to clear that up. >>> >>> You should try reading and understanding the document before you >>> "clear" anything up about it. >> >> What rights are not codified in the US constitution as the US >> constitution exists today? >> >> If you kill a pregnant mother you can be charged with two murders. >> However, if you kill an unborn child, via abortion, you cannot be >> charged with murder. What is the difference? The unborn child is dead >> either way. >> >> I guess it is ok to kill unborn children because they cannot speak >> for themselves. > > The vast majority are victims of convenience. Cite. |