2 ms·

So you want to use the excuse of drug smuggling to punish criminals above their judges ordered constitutionally legal sentence? Got it. Thanks for elaborating o

So you want to use the excuse of drug smuggling to punish criminals above their judges ordered constitutionally legal sentence? Got it. Thanks for elaborating on your reasoning and why you don't believe 'all men are created equal' and have constitutional rights (with criminals, what we are discussing here is a protected right to 'familial association' if you want to look it up in case law and Supreme Court precedent). We don't have constitutional rights because they are easy, but because that is what the United States of America has said since it's founding is the right thing to do and the core of what it is as a country.

angelgonzales 4y ago
I’m not sure your argument is valid, I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make as it relates to the point I was trying to make. That being said, a government isn’t infringing on the rights of citizens when the government incidentally creates a situation where the citizen’s ability to exercise their rights is limited. I as a free person have the right to protest, that doesn’t mean the government is obligated to pay for my posters or advertisements, nor are they obligated to protect me, that doesn’t mean they’re infringing on my right to assemble and protest. I’m also not sure that reading books or news is a constitutional right, although writing and reporting is a constitutional right. A government not providing a means for prisoners to purchase or read books does not mean they’re actively infringing on any rights, it’s purely incidental if the prisoner has no access to literature because the government has no obligation to provide literature to prisoners. There is the question of cruel and unusual punishment, but if we go by historical precedent which is important to consider then not providing literature to prisoners is not a cruel punishment.

angelgonzales 4y ago

I’m not sure your argument is valid, I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make as it relates to the point I was trying to make. That being said, a government isn’t infringing on the rights of citizens when the government incidentally creates a situation where the citizen’s ability to exercise their rights is limited. I as a free person have the right to protest, that doesn’t mean the government is obligated to pay for my posters or advertisements, nor are they obligated to protect me, that doesn’t mean they’re infringing on my right to assemble and protest. I’m also not sure that reading books or news is a constitutional right, although writing and reporting is a constitutional right. A government not providing a means for prisoners to purchase or read books does not mean they’re actively infringing on any rights, it’s purely incidental if the prisoner has no access to literature because the government has no obligation to provide literature to prisoners. There is the question of cruel and unusual punishment, but if we go by historical precedent which is important to consider then not providing literature to prisoners is not a cruel punishment.