A Couple Of My Bathroom Products

Flynn

LionHeart Diva
Site Supporter
Reaction score
4,813
Location
Far from yup!
They did have tribal councils.

They were not codified. They were about their own tribes. Not other tribes or even other people.

They had no idea that white people even existed, or black for that matter. Why would they have laws for people that didn't exist in their world?

Oh. I thought you said there wasn't any kind of governing body?

Now, Lily was there and knows what went on.

Just stop. You're sounding fucking pathetic.
 

Flynn

LionHeart Diva
Site Supporter
Reaction score
4,813
Location
Far from yup!
You should have been a lawyer. Flynn-Flam to witness: So? You're ______

Solid debate skills. :LOL3:

Well people who don't like you have loose lips about your health struggles. I hear you can't even walk...is it because you're a fucking fat blob?
 

Lily

Site Supporter
Reaction score
23,148
Location
California
This is your opinion.

Show me facts on your claims.

:LOL3: :LOL3: :LOL3: :LOL3:

failed-task-failed-successfully.gif
 

250910

18610412
Site Supporter
Reaction score
-721
Location
250923.09
Oh that's right, scholars and lawyers are commies...
...but a half-wit old man 'cliner cultured drug addict like you knows....otay. LoLz at Ragtard.
I wouldn't feel bad about kicking you in the vagina.

Don't get excited -- I'm not offering to do you that favor. I'm just saying my conscience wouldn't pain me much over it. A nice full-steam-ahead steel-toed boot to the cooch might even do you a world of good.
 

Reggie_Essent

An Claidheam Anam
Site Supporter
Reaction score
2,792
Location
Chicagoland

The Best Holliday

Site Supporter
Reaction score
982
Location
the Ether
Oh you read this?

fourthamendment.jpg


Owned.
Yep. Show me where it says "except this or that persons". LoLz @ Flynn-Flam
. This dear, is why a warrant is required to seize property or a person regardless of status.
I don't care if you or I don't care for the law, that's what it is.
A legal claim of violation of law must be made and the right of the accused to council and counter claim is guaranteed. This proceeds from the 4th in the case of illegal immigrants as well as all other people.
You have had all of that put before you so STFU..
 

Flynn

LionHeart Diva
Site Supporter
Reaction score
4,813
Location
Far from yup!
Yep. Show me where it says "except this or that persons". LoLz @ Flynn-Flam
. This dear, is why a warrant is required to seize property or a person regardless of status.
I don't care if you or I don't care for the law, that's what it is.
A legal claim of violation of law must be made and the right of the accused to council and counter claim is guaranteed. This proceeds from the 4th in the case of illegal immigrants as well as all other people.
You have had all of that put before you so STFU..

Show me where it says illegal immigrants.
 

Lily

Site Supporter
Reaction score
23,148
Location
California
They were whether you like it or not.
Show me where it says illegal immigrants.


AI Overview

Several Supreme Court cases have established that "illegal" or undocumented aliens are entitled to due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
These rights apply within the U.S. borders, regardless of immigration status, and protect individuals from arbitrary or unjust treatment by the government. While the extent of due process can vary depending on the situation, core principles of fairness and the opportunity to be heard are guaranteed.

Here's a breakdown of key cases and principles:
  • Reno v. Flores (1993):
    Justice Antonin Scalia, in this case, stated that "it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [immigrants] to due process of law".

  • Mathews v. Diaz (1976):
    The Supreme Court recognized that even those with unlawful or transitory presence are entitled to constitutional protection, according to LII.

  • Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953):
    This case clarified that aliens who have entered the country, even illegally, are entitled to due process protections in deportation proceedings, according to LII.

  • Plyler v. Doe (1982):
    While not directly about due process, this case established that states cannot deny undocumented children access to free public education, illustrating the principle that undocumented individuals are entitled to certain protections.