Oelewapper wrote:
How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
mislead?

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require
it.

Amendment V

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 offense 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.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

----------------

Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the 13th
amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation of
people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in American
history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?

I believe the only thing he studied seriously as a student at Yale was the
quantity of alcoholic beverage it would take to reduce him to a state of
unconsciousness. The only reason Yale saw fit to issue a degree in his name was
that his father and grandfather were alumni and, both having been or being in
public life, they were in a position to do the university irreparable harm if it
failed to award him the degree, albeit academically unearned.

That's a process known throughout academe as "legacy" enrollments carried to its
normal conclusions. Many universities subscribe to the practice, however
unattractive it may seem, including those at the upper tier, like Yale and
Harvard.

To understand our President's true academic skills and aptitudes, one has merely
to look at the action taken by his home state university, the University of
Texas, who, upon receiving his application for entry into their law school,
politely declined the honor and suggested that his educational future undoubted
rested in some area other than the one in which he expressed interest.

I believe that was the event that prompted him to apply to Harvard University
for entry into their Masters program. His progress through that program was
completely undistinguished, as he candidly admits, and ended in its award of an
unearned degree to him that other students without influential parents or
grandparents would ever have received.

George Z.