@ bo_sox48
"Forget constitutional rights, displacement of people based on physical characteristics, ethnicity included, is against international law."
Can you cite the international law that prohibits the humane internment of potentially belligerent people during wartime?
@ obiwanobiwan
"Even so...you're really going to argue that, after a century of being a superpower and nearly three quarters of a century of being a nuclear-powered superpower, with interests in every corner of the globe, we can go back to a tax system which was good for and based around a smaller, more agrarian society?"
In a word, yes. But I dispute your point that the absence of a federal income tax was "a tax system which was good for and based around a smaller, more agrarian society". The size of our country and our type of economy should have little to no bearing on whether or not we have an individual federal-level income tax.
"It was unjust on THOSE grounds...along with, you know, common decency, but since we clearly won't win you over with that, either explain how it *wasn't* breaking US and Constitutional Law, or hang your head in shame and be silent, for you're talking out of your ass at this point, claiming to hate Constitutional violations..."
I *do* hate Constitutional violations, but I always take circumstance into consideration. It was wartime and a portion of our civilian population might have been belligerent. Now that you mention it, I will yield one small point. The detention of American citizens (irrespective of ancestry) was unconstitutional and unethical. That much I will admit. But the detention of Japanese (and German and Italian) immigrants was ethical, constitutional, and prudent.
"You are saying it's perfectly OK to round people up based on their ethnicity and being perceived as a 'threat.'"
Not their ethnicity; their nationality. And I wouldn't be perceiving belligerent foreign nationals to be a threat, they *would* be a threat.
"You're bigoted towards anyone whose ancestry happens to be tied to an enemy thousand of miles away. So, just so we're clear--hypothetically, if the US and *Israel* went to war today..."
Yes. I would intern every Israeli immigrant. In the case of declared war against a legitimate, uniformed enemy, I would detain any national from that enemy nation for the duration of the conflict, but I would take extensive measures to protect their private property in their absence and financially compensate them for their time.
"its connection to an enemy thousands of miles away"
Within easy range for a ham radio to an enemy sub parked offshore to relay strategic intelligence.
"Soldiers die to protect the rights and liberties of Americans"
Yeah. They shouldn't have to die because someone didn't have the balls to secure the country of civilians sympathetic to the enemy.
"I would argue the same applies to gun ownership--you have a right, but not an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms."
I agree. Reasonable limits are applied to all rights, but the restrictions on the right to bear arms far surpass the trivial limits placed on other rights. There are over 10,000 gun laws at the federal level ALONE. I suggest the following reasonable restriction on firearms at the federal level: 'The civilian ownership of any weapon firing a projectile of caliber >20mm is banned, with the exception of persons holding X license.'
"The limits of gun ownership, therefore, are tasked to the 10th Amendment and individual states"
You're missing the entire point of the 10th Amendment, then. The 2nd is a federally guaranteed right (due to its presence in the Constitution) and is thus not covered by the 10th. The 10th merely delegates any rights and privileges not mentioned in the Constitution to the the States or the people. The 2nd is definitely in the Constitution.
)
I'm 18 Bitcheeesss! :)
)
)
)
)