Posted on Jul 10, 2021
Do the “Orders of a Sentry” and the Constitutions Guarantee to protect against invasion/ Domestic Violence work together at the Border?
1.34K
45
60
1
1
0
I am surprised how this is not getting more heat.
We all swore an oath to defend the constitution which states
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
We would all be a good sentry as seen here
“ In the Navy and Marine Corps, there are eleven General Orders of a Sentry, also known as General Orders of the Watch. The Army and Air Force have condensed these eleven orders into three.”
But the border of our own nation?
Someone brought up the following 1951 UN Convention. I interpret the below statement to basically be subservient to the constitution in its implementation, and in no way should lessen your orders to follow the constitution, similar to the orders of sentry
I do not believe this negates the statement made in Constitution. And we swore an oath to defend the constitution.
——Here is his statement from my other post
Let's not forget that we are signatories on Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention and Protection.
So no, we can't just put up a wall and say "no one can come in". We agreed to abide by a set of procedures when individuals come to our borders seeking asylum.
"The [Immigration and Naturalization] Service shall not issue a Notice of Intent to Fine for acts of fraud [the crime of illegal entry] committed by an alien pursuant to direct departure from a country in which the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution or from which there is a significant danger that the alien would be returned to a country in which the alien would have a well-founded fear of persecution, provided that the alien has presented himself or herself without delay to an INS officer and shown good cause for his or her illegal entry or presence.."
We all swore an oath to defend the constitution which states
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
We would all be a good sentry as seen here
“ In the Navy and Marine Corps, there are eleven General Orders of a Sentry, also known as General Orders of the Watch. The Army and Air Force have condensed these eleven orders into three.”
But the border of our own nation?
Someone brought up the following 1951 UN Convention. I interpret the below statement to basically be subservient to the constitution in its implementation, and in no way should lessen your orders to follow the constitution, similar to the orders of sentry
I do not believe this negates the statement made in Constitution. And we swore an oath to defend the constitution.
——Here is his statement from my other post
Let's not forget that we are signatories on Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention and Protection.
So no, we can't just put up a wall and say "no one can come in". We agreed to abide by a set of procedures when individuals come to our borders seeking asylum.
"The [Immigration and Naturalization] Service shall not issue a Notice of Intent to Fine for acts of fraud [the crime of illegal entry] committed by an alien pursuant to direct departure from a country in which the alien has a well-founded fear of persecution or from which there is a significant danger that the alien would be returned to a country in which the alien would have a well-founded fear of persecution, provided that the alien has presented himself or herself without delay to an INS officer and shown good cause for his or her illegal entry or presence.."
Posted in these groups: Sentry
Constitution
Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
We swore oaths to defend the Constitution yes. But we don't get to just pick and choose the parts we like. PO3 Hassay isn't the interpreter of it's meaning. That falls to the judiciary. If you want to understand what you role is and the meaning, you have to examine the body of case law around it. Anything else isn't defending the Constitution at all.
(6)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
The second was a near-miss, SPC Kevin Ford - it was to the summary status page instead of the actual document. Try "http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1529&PID=1456&snum=130" for the direct route.
I'd go so far as to say there's no reliable way to tell anything about how a piece of legislation was written, but I was (am) curious about which approach you'd consider more likely to be "professional", and even more curious about how you'd judge. I'm not really looking for a right or wrong, more of a stroll through someone else's reasoning.
I'd go so far as to say there's no reliable way to tell anything about how a piece of legislation was written, but I was (am) curious about which approach you'd consider more likely to be "professional", and even more curious about how you'd judge. I'm not really looking for a right or wrong, more of a stroll through someone else's reasoning.
LD 1529, HP 1133, Text and Status, 130th Legislature, First Special Session
Need a paper copy? Contact the Document Room at 287-1408 or send an e-mail with the Paper or LD number, Item number and a mailing address to webmaster_house@legislature.maine.gov.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1LT William Clardy - OK, I'm comparing strictly the PDFs and it's a nice comparison because it really has to do with the same issue.
In general the first part on section Art. I, §1 i in both documents is aspirational, that is to say it gives a general principle but there will be a fair amount of interpretation by the courts without further clarification. As more direct guidance to the courts on what they are looking for, the second would probably be better up to a point.
The problem with the second one (I know I just said in some ways I liked it better) is that it mentioned particular technologies. If we are on biological "computers" in 50 years will it still be considered "electronic communication", how about "the Internet" (that's a bit of a term of art that also may not survive the test of time)? I think we both know the cases that will end up being brought when (note I didn't say if) those terms lose their meaning or their meaning changes.
So in summary, the first one is very aspirational, open to a lot of judicial interpretation but it will survive the test of time. So if the intent of the legislature is to tell the judiciary, this is the principle I want you to follow, now go figure it out, that's the one. (Which I very much doubt a lot of legislatures want to do). The second is more directive to the courts but unfortunately the use of contemporary technical terms will not survive the test of time and will cause problems at a later date.
Edit to add: Now just thinking it through, if they wanted to call out technologies that will change they may want to put that sort of language in statutes which are easier to change than a state's constitution. The problem there may be more political unless both can be done procedurally as part of the same effort.
In general the first part on section Art. I, §1 i in both documents is aspirational, that is to say it gives a general principle but there will be a fair amount of interpretation by the courts without further clarification. As more direct guidance to the courts on what they are looking for, the second would probably be better up to a point.
The problem with the second one (I know I just said in some ways I liked it better) is that it mentioned particular technologies. If we are on biological "computers" in 50 years will it still be considered "electronic communication", how about "the Internet" (that's a bit of a term of art that also may not survive the test of time)? I think we both know the cases that will end up being brought when (note I didn't say if) those terms lose their meaning or their meaning changes.
So in summary, the first one is very aspirational, open to a lot of judicial interpretation but it will survive the test of time. So if the intent of the legislature is to tell the judiciary, this is the principle I want you to follow, now go figure it out, that's the one. (Which I very much doubt a lot of legislatures want to do). The second is more directive to the courts but unfortunately the use of contemporary technical terms will not survive the test of time and will cause problems at a later date.
Edit to add: Now just thinking it through, if they wanted to call out technologies that will change they may want to put that sort of language in statutes which are easier to change than a state's constitution. The problem there may be more political unless both can be done procedurally as part of the same effort.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Very nice summation, SPC Kevin Ford, and (with your addendum) almost dead-on with how I explained the differences to Justin, although I hadn't really thought of my wording as "aspirational."
The intent behind the first one was to be more encompassing of all the legally significant aspects of privacy instead of focusing on just the "unreasonable search" aspect. For example, consider two factions who are both adamant and vocal about their right to medical privacy ("My body, my choice"), at least when it's the choice they want to preserve, but are notably less enthusiastic about applying the same reasoning to choices they disagree with. It seemed better to get the common principal put to paper than to try (and presumably fail at) detailing out all the "right" or "wrong" applications.
The intent behind the first one was to be more encompassing of all the legally significant aspects of privacy instead of focusing on just the "unreasonable search" aspect. For example, consider two factions who are both adamant and vocal about their right to medical privacy ("My body, my choice"), at least when it's the choice they want to preserve, but are notably less enthusiastic about applying the same reasoning to choices they disagree with. It seemed better to get the common principal put to paper than to try (and presumably fail at) detailing out all the "right" or "wrong" applications.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1LT William Clardy - The more I think on it I do like the one that puts in the high level goal into the Constitution with the idea of putting the details in the statutes. Then the judiciary can determine if there is a "disagreement" on if an individual statue does or does not meet the Constitutional "goal". Also changes to the implementation that will need to happen over time can be done so more easily by normal legislative action. A Constitution should (IMOHO) lay out broad ideals and also be prescriptive in the structure of the governing bodies, but not be an all inclusive implementation document. This is generally how I see the federal Constitution and most state Constitutions are laid out (with a few exceptions, yes I'm looking at you California with your 500+ amendments).
It reminds me of the seventh amendment where the put in a dollar amount for when federal civil suits allow a jury trial when over $20. Of course, over time that $20 has moved from a somewhat substantial to a trivial amount of money. The seventh would have better survived the test of time had they just said "in an amount to be determined by the House of Representatives." or Congress, or whatever.
It reminds me of the seventh amendment where the put in a dollar amount for when federal civil suits allow a jury trial when over $20. Of course, over time that $20 has moved from a somewhat substantial to a trivial amount of money. The seventh would have better survived the test of time had they just said "in an amount to be determined by the House of Representatives." or Congress, or whatever.
(1)
(0)
Do you consider immigrants as invaders or enemies of the United States? I think you need to rethink how you view immigration.
(5)
(0)
PO2 David Davidson
Not sure where you got that I believe that simply disobeying a cop is criminal. Maybe just your bias?
Anyway…as I have explained before, that section of the law only deals with “legal” immigrant and non-immigrants definitions. If the term “immigrant” applied to ALL aliens, the laws would state so. Instead, the term “alien” is used.
Here’s a great example for you: Section 1252(c) of the "Aliens and Nationality" laws is titled: "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens."
And
Section 1365, titled "Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals,"
And
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorized the hiring of 25 new federal lawyers to "prosecute persons who bring into the United States or harbor illegal aliens or violate other criminal statutes involving illegal aliens."
Absolutely no mention of “immigrant.”
1LT William Clardy
Anyway…as I have explained before, that section of the law only deals with “legal” immigrant and non-immigrants definitions. If the term “immigrant” applied to ALL aliens, the laws would state so. Instead, the term “alien” is used.
Here’s a great example for you: Section 1252(c) of the "Aliens and Nationality" laws is titled: "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens."
And
Section 1365, titled "Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals,"
And
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorized the hiring of 25 new federal lawyers to "prosecute persons who bring into the United States or harbor illegal aliens or violate other criminal statutes involving illegal aliens."
Absolutely no mention of “immigrant.”
1LT William Clardy
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I didn't mean to imply that you believe that trite bit of law-enforcement misinformation, just that I have met a lot of career cops who did. That's why I'm more of a believer in "I've forgotten more than you'll ever know" than "I've been doing this so long there's nothing I don't know."
As I keep saying, I'd welcome you proving me wrong by finding a section of law which specifies that immigrants only means lawfully admitted immigrants.
I will point out that the same chunk of immigration law I've been referencing also defines "aliens" without any mention of the legality of their entry:
"(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."
Lastly, to your point about "If the term “immigrant” applied to ALL aliens, the laws would state so", PO2 David Davidson, I will again quote from the definition coming a few sub-paragraphs later, where the law *does* "state so":
"(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-"
As I keep saying, I'd welcome you proving me wrong by finding a section of law which specifies that immigrants only means lawfully admitted immigrants.
I will point out that the same chunk of immigration law I've been referencing also defines "aliens" without any mention of the legality of their entry:
"(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."
Lastly, to your point about "If the term “immigrant” applied to ALL aliens, the laws would state so", PO2 David Davidson, I will again quote from the definition coming a few sub-paragraphs later, where the law *does* "state so":
"(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-"
(0)
(0)
PO2 David Davidson
I’ll stop with this one. The section about definition of immigrant refers only to legal alien status. Please speak with an experienced CIS Adjudication Officer and will confirm it. 1LT William Clardy
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
I have little doubt that, in the context of adjudicating applications for immigrant status, the policies and manuals do exclude illegals from the process, PO2 David Davidson.
But that is administrative interpretation, not written law. The law, as enacted by Congress, spells out what it means to be lawfully admitted to the United States, but sets that distinction aside when defining who can be considered an immigrant. If it did exclude the unlawfully admitted, DACA (and every other executive-order-driven amnesty/reform) would have been declared an executive overreach much faster.
But that is administrative interpretation, not written law. The law, as enacted by Congress, spells out what it means to be lawfully admitted to the United States, but sets that distinction aside when defining who can be considered an immigrant. If it did exclude the unlawfully admitted, DACA (and every other executive-order-driven amnesty/reform) would have been declared an executive overreach much faster.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
'Brown' people aren't a standing army or an invading force. Jesus fucking christ what is wrong with you people.
(4)
(0)
PO3 Aaron Hassay
I am looking more at protecting against domestic violence caused by invasion of illegal drugs and other dangerous things that are being reported by government as increasing
Brown people is not the problem or the topic here.
If you have been brainwashed to think in such terms as brown black white yellow red people then you might want to look at reality.
Infact there are no brown people if you want to use color correctly. There are many skin tones and even people of lighter complexion then I am south of the border.
If you are going to play the color game then play it correctiy. There truly no real white brown black red or yellow people. Look at any dermatologist skin color spectrum which you can google.
I believe what people are trying to put context too is poverty or terrible living standards compared to a normal 4 walled well maintained single family home with parents present and dog and a few kids
There are poor disadvantaged people in the United Staters that need to be treated like asylum seekers and protected from dangerous life threatening illegal drugs like fentanyl, which flooding through the border
Is the United States just an impervious place of humans that can care take anyone and everyone from across the globe?
I have lived in Mexico in the heart of it for a half a year. There are many rich well to do Mexicans, millions and millions and millions. Have you never spent time there? Infact I would say most people stay in their country and live and do ok to the standards of their lifestyle.
Government reports state people from all over the world 150 countries are getting stopped swimming across that border as things have loosened up.
Do you believe all the people have good intention?
Brown people is not the problem or the topic here.
If you have been brainwashed to think in such terms as brown black white yellow red people then you might want to look at reality.
Infact there are no brown people if you want to use color correctly. There are many skin tones and even people of lighter complexion then I am south of the border.
If you are going to play the color game then play it correctiy. There truly no real white brown black red or yellow people. Look at any dermatologist skin color spectrum which you can google.
I believe what people are trying to put context too is poverty or terrible living standards compared to a normal 4 walled well maintained single family home with parents present and dog and a few kids
There are poor disadvantaged people in the United Staters that need to be treated like asylum seekers and protected from dangerous life threatening illegal drugs like fentanyl, which flooding through the border
Is the United States just an impervious place of humans that can care take anyone and everyone from across the globe?
I have lived in Mexico in the heart of it for a half a year. There are many rich well to do Mexicans, millions and millions and millions. Have you never spent time there? Infact I would say most people stay in their country and live and do ok to the standards of their lifestyle.
Government reports state people from all over the world 150 countries are getting stopped swimming across that border as things have loosened up.
Do you believe all the people have good intention?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google