Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
The US First Amendment?
Is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to the United States?
Where, in the Constitution, does it say that foreign nationals supposedly owe allegiance to another sovereign entity, which in this case is the United States?
Does Congress and the United States government realize that America has no sovereign presence or rights in the EU, Russia, and China; and it would not be easy to win a nuclear exchange with any sovereign power which has nuclear submarines?
Does the Pentagon, CIA, and the United States government realize that a relatively small country such as France and Great Britain has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter a much bigger and stronger military power such as Russia, China, and the United States, and America could not easily win a nuclear exchange without incurring heavy loss in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties? Needless to say, are they aware that America could not easily win a nuclear exchange against China without incurring even greater collateral damage in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties?
Given that this is the case, is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to their god-forsaken country, whereas, they could just as easily kill US troops and civilians in the event of a major military conflict with Russia, China, and N. Korea?
Is President Obama, Bush, and Clinton presumptuous to assume that out of all the 62.262 million total population in the UK, that most of them would supposedly want to live in the United States; and are they naive to assume that the political ideologies of non-White people in Great Britain is any different from the White majority, which would make them more susceptible to US propaganda? What percentage of the total population in Britain do they seriously think would want to live in the United States? What could the United States possibly offer to people in Great Britain that they don't already have here in this country? Why should British people (and Europeans, generally) owe allegiance to the United States, which is a foreign sovereign power, which will always be foreign in the eyes of the British people?
By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a right NEVER to set foot on American soil, which is a non-negotiable right; but does Obama, Bush, and Clinton realize that this is a valid, sound, and correct interpretation of the Constitution?
By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a RIGHT to fight for whichever country they happen to choose in the event of a major war with the United States, and they have a right to kill US troops and civilians, which is a non-negotiable right; but is the President aware that this is a TRUE interpretation of the Constitution?
Moreover, is the President aware that the United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, by definition, implies that no alien would ever be bound by any lawful duty of allegiance to the United States; and is he aware that the Universal Right of Self Determination implies that any alien who is a non-US citizen has a RIGHT to declare his allegiance to a hostile sovereign power in the event of a major military conflict with the United States e.g. Iran, China, N. Korea, and the Russian Federation?
Is the President aware that the recent changes to the US Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965 is futile and meaningless to foreign nationals who do not wish to apply for a Waiver of Ineligibility, nor do they wish to ever live in the United States? Is the President presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals with criminal records would supposedly stoop to ask for clemency from a country to whom they have no allegiance? Is the President presumptuous to assume that aliens who are non-US citizens would supposedly pay US attorneys an exorbitant fee of $6,000 to $10,000 to obtain a Green Card which they do not wish to have, and to live in a country which they dislike?
Based on the law of probability, what is the likelihood of Congress and the Government enticing reluctant foreigners who does not wish to apply for a visa to live in the United States?
@laughter_every_day. Nothing to do with schizophrenia. Pathological mental illness has nothing to do with the fact I don't like your country; and it doesn't make any sense for you to say that those few people responsible do not represent the nation as a whole; because this could never have happened without the historic, cultural, and political context which is specific to America. Could you honestly say that these events could have happened in Britain or anywhere else? What would be wrong if I said that I don't like your social practice and political culture? What is so pathological about disliking another country, which is not my country? Why should I be any different from other people in this country, who mostly do not want to be American? As it happens, I think the UK is ten times better than your country; but what is so pathological if I owe allegiance to another country, which is not your country? I think everyone has a right to be left alone and not to have the
I think everyone has a right to be left alone and not to have their private matters interfered by the government; but do you deny that the government has overstepped its bounds in this case? You have no right to expect the loyalty of foreign nationals who have no allegiance with the United States. Honestly, I think you are completely out of order to expect the loyalty of foreigners who have no allegiance at all with your country. Politics is not the be all; and quite frankly, I don't have the incentive to study and better myself if that's the case (which is clearly demonstrated by the evidence of history). Do you realize that, in the last fortnight alone, I've neglected my sustenance, sleep, recreation, and personal hygiene to work on a project which I feel most passionate about? What's the use going into politics if you're not happy, if it's not what you want to do? And what use is it to have a Green Card if you don't believe in the US flag? What cou
What could America possibly offer to people here in Britain which we don't already have in terms of educational facilities? De facto, scientific achievement is far more important to me than politics; and quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your country and your political system. POTUS is a useless job which is not worthy of my attention. Obama may be the President now, but he won't be remembered in a hundred years. The fact that George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford are former Heads of State, does not by itself demonstrate that they are intelligent, because intelligence is not a pre-requisite to the White House. What good is it to be the most powerful man in the world if you're not seen to be intelligent?
And, who are you to say that Paul Mayo is "wrong" and you are supposedly right? Is there anybody at all in the CIA who could have foreshadowed my involvement with the Church as Paul has done? What are the chances that such an Omen was a fluke? Paul was RIGHT. Now, at long last, I have the wisdom of experience to know that Great Britain has much more to offer in terms of social and academic opportunities than the United States; and it goes without saying that I abhor the East Coast Elite, Congress, and US government, and I have no allegiance whatsoever with the United States. Who are you to say that Paul is "wrong" and Obama is "right" on this matter? "Major contribution" is nuanced in this case to refer to a landmark achievement in the History of Science, which has nothing at all to do with politics. It was simply your own stupid mistake to assume that I would ever go into politics in the first place.
3 Answers
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
Your first mistake is that you assume anyone gives a rats *** what you think.
Your second mistake was posting a question that's going to get deleted.
Your third mistake was assuming that the USA wouldn't wipe the floor with any of the countries you mentioned.
And your fourth mistake is assuming that ANYONE would "win" a nuclear war. There would be no winner, just a lesser loser.
- hildegaardLv 44 years ago
generally speaking, SCOTUS has been VERY reticent to apply the 10th modification as justification for a keeping over the previous 220+ years. interior the previous a million/2-century, it is basically been used two times, as an occasion. contained on the subject of The decrease priced Care Act (you maintain calling it "Obamacare" all you desire, it is nevertheless not the appropriate call, nor an exceptionally ideal pejorative term...), the federal government isn't asking the states to enforce a federal statutory scheme on behalf of the federal government. Or, consistent with possibility greater advantageous positioned, the ACA does not remember on the instrumentalities of the particularly some states to enforce, enact, or sell itself. it incredibly is a regulation to be complied with via the two the states and private marketplace, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it is not a regulation that demands the states to (as an occasion) use police powers to be certain compliance. fairly, the marketplace itself is had to conform, and it is the medical wellbeing insurance marketplace which would be on the hook for any non-compliance. This, via the way, does not strike me as violative of the commerce Clause, by way of fact the medical wellbeing insurance marketplace is virtually universally engaged in interstate commerce. yet, if SCOTUS have been to interrupt with custom and make the main of the 10th modification to invalidate the ACA (which i don't think of a probably effect in spite of if it have been ideal), i don't see it being a watershed 2d in history the place all of sudden the 10th modification will become the "reason du jour"
- davidmi711Lv 79 years ago
The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Has nothing to do with your mindless rant other than your right not to have the government prevent you from posting it. It does not prevent Y!A from deleting it