☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
7

Just A Reminder About the 5th Amendment

submitted by FreeinTX to TellTalk 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 20:41:34 ago (+7/-0)     (TellTalk)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Person. Not citizen. We have always given illegal aliens due process and their day in court. There are thousands of convicted illegal aliens in our prisons and jails. We weren't doing them a favor by charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing them. We were following the law.


63 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 9 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:05:13 ago (+9/-0)

Nah, kill them all. The constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 2 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:07:19 ago (+3/-1)

The Constitution applies to the United States federal government. You should probably read it some time.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 5 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:54:04 ago (+5/-0)

Thanks for agreeing with what I said. It wasn’t necessary, since it’s fact, but it’s good to see.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:13:07 ago (+2/-1)

You seem to believe that the Constitution applies or doesn't apply to something other than government. Again, it says "person," not citizen, and we've been giving illegals due process before now, what changed?

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 6 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:21:25 ago (+6/-0)

You seem to believe

Truth isn’t a matter of belief.

the Constitution applies or doesn't apply to something other than government.

It does, yeah.

Again, it says "person," not citizen, and we've been giving illegals due process before now, what changed?

Nothing has changed. Those were illegal actions. Not giving them “due process” is the legal action.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:31:30 ago (+2/-1)

I recommend a remedial English class for ya. Maybe you'll pick up the actual meaning of words, as used in sentences.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 5 points 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 00:07:29 ago (+5/-0)

Neat, don’t care. Foreigners aren’t protected by the Constitution. It doesn’t apply to them. It’s literally what the word means. You’ve conceded the argument and admitted you support infinite white time and resources going to keeping foreigners alive.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 01:07:23 ago (+1/-0)

So, in Article 1 section 3, it talks about the requirement to be president and the you must be a "citizen of the United States," but in the fifth amendment, it bars the government from taking actions against a "person" without due process. Clearly, these are 2 distinctly different things, right?

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 08:20:34 ago (+2/-0)

Nope, same thing. Non-citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The Founders explicitly and publicly said so. No consideration was made for infinity illegals within our legal framework. Commit suicide for purposely and obtuse lay using jewish pilpul to demand whites treat nonwhites the same.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 08:36:40 ago (+1/-0)

Where did the founding fathers "explicitly and publicly" say this? I know for a fact that this isn't true. Because, again, the constitution is about the rules for the federal government. Are you saying the federal government has no jurisdiction over illegal aliens? But please, do post proof about your claim.
Continue thread

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 23:52:40 ago (+0/-0)

Well anything that isn't white isn't a person.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 00:15:19 ago (+0/-0)

So, then, why were we giving non-whites due process prior to this action? Why are we giving other non-whites due process, now? And, how do you define "white" and what's being done to ensure "whites" as you define them are actually "white"? Where is this determination of what is our isn't "white" written in federal law? Seems that the 14th Amendment disputes your assertion. If niggers aren't people, then what was the 14th Amendment all about?

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 00:24:11 ago (+0/-0)

Sorry bud but niggers aren't people You are programmed to believe this and simp for the nigger.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 00:26:06 ago (+0/-0)

So, what was the 14th Amendment all about? And why are niggers being given due process? Why will you be changed with a crime if you kill a nigger? Murder specifically is about killing other "people".

[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 00:34:06 ago (+0/-0)

Welcome to purefuckingkikery. Just because some retards put it on a piece of paper doesn't make it true. You can keep nigger cucking, but I'm afraid I've ascended.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 06:37:04 ago (+0/-0)

Are you familiar with the amendment process? It wasn't a few retards and it makes it law, whether you believe it to be true or not.
Continue thread

[ - ] JudyStroyer 6 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:26:16 ago (+6/-0)

person
Doesn’t say anything about “nigger” be it mexican, traditional, or otherwise.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] -2 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:29:57 ago (+0/-2)

So, if I decide that you're a nigger, you don't deserve due process?

And, we've been giving niggers due process up until now. What changed? Was an amendment passed? A SCOTUS ruling reversing the decision?

And, I can't wait till they are calling you a nigger for opposing a war in Iran to help Israel. Then what?

[ - ] NegaroNegaroNeeegaro 4 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:48:37 ago (+4/-0)

🍉

[ - ] JudyStroyer 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 04:44:06 ago (+1/-0)

Lmao, that would be fuckin awesome because that is a hill worth dying on.

Kikes:
who radicalized you nigger
You did, kike.

[ - ] MasklessTheGreat 4 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:55:31 ago (+4/-0)

Traffic tickets are unconstitutional according to the bill of rights. Being arrested at any point during a traffic stop or pretty much any time without a grand jury indictment, a warrant with a wet ink signature of a judge and the accompanying affidavit of probable cause is also unconstitutional. Don’t unknowingly give up your rights.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 3 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:10:58 ago (+3/-0)

Traffic tickets are not unconstitutional. The improper application of the transportation code to private citizens is what's unconstitutional.

And the 5th amendment specifically refers to felonies, capital, or otherwise infamous crimes, with regards to a Grand Jury indictment. Lesser crimes, as listed in the penal code, not the transportation code, only require an information. A signed arrest warrant following a finding of probable cause is only necessary if a peace officer does not personally witness the crime being committed, and that's only after you've been initially brought before a magistrate following a complaint by a person of good moral character.

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:20:40 ago (+2/-0)

transportation code

Where does the Constitution say this can exist.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 2 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:32:05 ago (+2/-0)

Article 1 Section 8 and the regulation of commerce.

[ - ] MasklessTheGreat 3 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:43:13 ago (+3/-0)

Right, so if I am traveling in my personal conveyance and not transporting persons or property for hire then tell me why any federal or state code applies.

Thats why traffic tickets are, in fact, unconstitutional.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 01:21:21 ago (+1/-0)

It doesn't. Traffic tickets, according to the law, are given to people who are "driving" "motor vehicles" on the "highways" or "byways" "of this state" and who violate the "transportation code". They are NOT given to people who are "traveling" in their "personal conveyance" on the "roads".

You are confused. Show me ANYONE convicted of violating the transportation code who was not "driving" or "operating" a "motor vehicle" on the "highways" or "byways" "of this state" and I'll show you someone who has grounds for appeal of that conviction, and will win on appeal.

Does your "personal conveyance" have a "license plate" and a VIN? Do you have a "driver's license"? Do you have liability insurance that meets the requirements of your states transportation code? If you are pulled over because the cop saw your license plate and reasonably assumed you were engaged in transportation, and saw you violate the transportation code, did you provide him with your driver's license, proof of insurance, and the registration for your motor vehicle? When you went to court, did you deny you were engaged in transportation and object every single time the judge or prosecutor said that you were "driving" or "operating" a "motor vehicle"?

The transportation code is lawful. Hell, so is the income tax. Question is, are you asserting your rights and not Voluntarily agreeing to be subjected to a code that does not apply?

[ - ] MasklessTheGreat 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 14:16:47 ago (+1/-0)

Ok nigger, we need to sit down over a few beers and chop it up. We are definitely on the same page on a lot of shit. Seems we might both be in Tx. Hmm…

[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 00:06:45 ago (+2/-0)

There you go; that’s the ticket. That’s an actual allowable restriction.

[ - ] MasklessTheGreat 2 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 22:46:00 ago (+2/-0)

I would bet dollars to donuts that most arrests are made with bench warrants and without the arresting officer witnessing a crime.

[ - ] beece 3 points 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:18:42 ago (+3/-0)

Where, in the constitution, does it say I have to pay for a lawyer for any of these assholes?

I'll wait.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 22, 2025 21:27:39 ago (+2/-1)

That part about a fair trial, which is part of the 5th amendment, due process, that I posted.

And who said anything about a lawyer? They weren't given a hearing. They haven't been charged with a crime. They are simply accused of being here illegally and being part of a gang that has been designated as a terrorist organization. They have not being given an opportunity, with out without a lawyer, to answer these allegations.

And again, we have been providing lawyers to illegal aliens for better than a century. Can you show me the amendment or SCOTUS decision that changed that requirement so that it no longer applies? It applied before, why not now?

[ - ] Reawakened 2 points 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 00:08:13 ago (+2/-0)

What are you playing at? That we should tie up resources trying criminal invaders? Is that how we handled the British in 1812?

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 00:57:20 ago (+1/-0)

Tie up resources? Like the resources we use prosecuting any number of what a million laws that we have on the books, most of which are utter bullshit? Those resources?

[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 10:29:03 ago (+1/-0)

Why do you defend criminal invaders? Your answer is a clear dodge.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 10:46:41 ago (+1/-0)*

*human rights

Who decided the people rounded up were "criminal invaders"? No court in this country did. There are at least 2 individuals that we know about who were likely rounded up because they are from Venezuela and have the wrong tattoos but were here legitimately. They have been sent to an abusive prison in a country that they have no affiliation to for a possible life sentence.

Did you know, specifically with Venezuelans, that many are here because they were helping John Bolton and the US government, under Trump's first term, pull off a coup of Maduro? They HELPED our government. Now, they're lives are in danger because the coup failed. So, they came here.

My answer was not a dodge. You mention that these people would take up resources. Addressing human rights issues in a court of law is far, far more important than the literal tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands, possibly millions, of cases involving non-violent drug offenses, gun law violations, or any number of mal-prohibitum bullshit laws that our "resources" are being used to prosecute.

You know, even if you're pasty white, you might find yourself being accused of being in TDA because you were here talking shit about jews and Israel. Then what? No court. No trial. No charges. Black bagged and sent off to die in an El Salvadoran prison. That's our country, right now.

[ - ] Reawakened 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 23:44:36 ago (+1/-0)

So you think access to White people is a human right? You think invasion is a human right? Venezuelans need to be in Venezuela. Anybody that came after the Hart-Cellars act needs to be where they are from. The time for justice is passed. That line of thinking is what got here in the first place. Average Americans want to live a country governed by law and justice. jews want power. We are in the middle of a cultural war. Which side is winning?

If the US was a reasonable country, I would side with you on the issue, but those days are far behind us. When we get back to an overwhelmingly White country, we can have the luxury of a fair system. We're not there today. We're fighting for our literal life as a people.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 00:24:00 ago (+0/-0)

No. Access to white people isn't a right and never suggested that it was, ya fuckin' retard.

Who determined that these people were here illegally? And if "Venezuelans need to be in Venezuela" then why did Trump send them to El Salvador? And why did he give Venezuelans "temporary protected status" here in the US after John Bolton, while working for Trump, fuck up the coup against Maduro?

The time for justice is passed.
You're clearly fucking retarded.

Then, you immediately say
Average Americans want to live a country governed by law and justice.

Holy fuck! Do you even think before you barf shit like this up? Which is it? Time for justice is passed or Americans want justice?

As for the jews. The same president that sent Venezuelans who helped him in a failed coup to El Salvador, and who also deported two legal residents for protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza took $250 million from jews. Which side of the "culture war" is he on? Yours? Or the jews?

You're not going to get back to a large majority white country by sending people who helped this government to foriegn prisons to be abused and silenced. And, it ain't gonna stop with Venezuelans, and your white skin isn't going to stop jew puppets from sending you to those same places when you interfere with their agenda.

Ya fuckin' retard.

[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 12:28:58 ago (+0/-0)

So you're a shitskin. Why didn't you say so? Could have saved me time trying to reason with you.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 12:36:36 ago (+0/-0)

Nogger, I've proven that I'm white. Fuckin' retard.

[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 12:41:16 ago (+0/-0)

I find it ironic that you call me retard while you shill for letting shitskins stay in the country. That is some Olympic quality delusion. You think you're gonna get justice from this government, in any way shape form or fashion and you call me a retard. LOL.... Alrighty then.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 12:47:38 ago (+0/-0)

Nigger, it's called human fucking rights you adolescent fucking idiot. And, you're the one demanding that this government NOT hand out any justice, ya fuckin' dipshit.
Continue thread

[ - ] TheYiddler 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 06:42:55 ago (+1/-0)

Since when has the constitution mattered? We can't have real weapons of war. Criticizing Israel is illegal in some states and Twitter files show that social media was following government orders to censor. The massive domestic spying apparatus proves the fourth is dead, etc.

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 10:37:54 ago (+1/-0)

The Constitution matters because when someone actually tries to do something to fix this fuckin' country, it will be the Rule of Law that justifies it. Paper can't enforce itself.

It is not "illegal" to criticize Israel in any state, and the people who passed state laws to ban giving state contracts to BDS supporters should be thrown out of office.

Yes, and we see those same social media companies being forced to take a mea culpa for following those orders. This was the result of political winds shifting. 10 years and much has changed.

The massive spying apparatus needs to be done away with, yes. That's going to take political pressure, prosecutions, exposure, legal action, and the 4th amendment under the Rule of Law.

[ - ] con77 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 01:32:54 ago (+1/-0)

Deport them all

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 01:46:23 ago (+1/-0)

Even the ones here legally? And the citizens? Whites, too?

[ - ] TheYiddler 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 15:16:34 ago (+1/-0)

Did he stutter?

[ - ] con77 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 21:43:08 ago (+1/-0)

Don't be a smartass

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 1 point 2 monthsMar 23, 2025 22:55:57 ago (+1/-0)

There was never any determination that the people that were rounded up were here illegally, had no legitimate claim to be here, and were in TdA and participating in gang activities. At least 2 of these people were once on the USG payroll aiding the US in the overthrow of Maduro. Their lives were actually in danger in Venezuela because they had helped the US government pull off a failed coup attempt. Do you get what I'm saying?

You think that if we let it slide that we allow our government to deport people to an El Salvadoran prison with no charges, no hearings, and no trial, that is going to stop at spics who we hired to execute coups in foriegn countries?

[ - ] con77 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 18:35:58 ago (+0/-0)

those face tats were temporary

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 19:36:47 ago (+0/-0)

So, face tats are actionable evidence of gang activity?

[ - ] con77 0 points 2 monthsMar 24, 2025 20:00:32 ago (+0/-0)

YUUUP

[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 2 monthsMar 25, 2025 19:59:05 ago (+0/-0)

So, Mike Tyson is a gang member and should be deported to die in an El Salvadoran prison?