Mahmoud at Columbia: Surprise!

RK_Striker_JK_5 · Post by **RK_Striker_JK_5** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:00 am

I listened to that. I loved it. Go, university pres.

DSG2k · Post by **DSG2k** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:20 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:Better yet, the 14th Ammendment states this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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 laws.
*Edit:Here's the link.

You've got some term-swapping afoot, there. While case law may or may not back it up, your reasoning in this particular instance is based on the fallacy of ambiguity.

"Jurisdiction" in the first sentence refers to the limits of jurisprudence . . . substitute "authority" to get the meaning there . . . but you seem to be thinking that "jurisdiction" in the last (bolded) sentence refers to a spatial issue of borders.

To put it semi-jokingly, Ahmendinejad is subject to our jurisdiction only dependent on the range of our weapons (and our willingness to use them).

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:06 pm

Going slightly back on topic;
Aparently Ahmendinejad wasn't treated too well. He was aparently introduced as 'the cruel and petty ruler of Iran'.
They had an article in this morning's paper, but I threw it in the bin by accident. I'll try and find the article today.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:48 pm

DSG2k wrote: You've got some term-swapping afoot, there. While case law may or may not back it up, your reasoning in this particular instance is based on the fallacy of ambiguity.

"Jurisdiction" in the first sentence refers to the limits of jurisprudence . . . substitute "authority" to get the meaning there . . . but you seem to be thinking that "jurisdiction" in the last (bolded) sentence refers to a spatial issue of borders.

To put it semi-jokingly, Ahmendinejad is subject to our jurisdiction only dependent on the range of our weapons (and our willingness to use them).

Is he in the country? Yes, then he's within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. There's no way around that.

Captain Peabody · Post by **Captain Peabody** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:27 am

So....the Dictator of a radical Islamic nation can visit a university, and its free speech...but a Conservative can't speak anywhere without massive protests. Lovely.

Is he in the country? Yes, then he's within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. There's no way around that.

I don't know where you get your definitions, but in the article you quoted it specifically says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Obviously, if we accepted your argument that everyone in the nation was under its jurisdiction, then we'd also have to accept that all people in the state were citizens as well....so your argument makes absolutely no sense. Sorry.