Who is covered by the Bill of Rights

Self | October 18, 2001 | Self

[thtr]

Post #147 is hardly simple. It is a detailed, thoughtful response to a perfectly valid question – quite unlike your boorish, ill-mannered diatribes. Keep coming… this is easy.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I didn't say it was simple. I said "simpler for you to comprehend".

The former statement would have been a statement primarily about post #147. The latter is primarily a statement about yourself. See the difference?

[thtr]

“The latter is primarily a statement about yourself. See the difference?

Ha! You are not even capable of reading your own post. YOUR words (which I must remind you have meaning) were ”#147 was written in such a way” Now you say this was a statement about me not the post. If it was about me, why begin your reply with how #147 was written? Obviously YOU can not see the difference, how should I? (Geez, like ducks in a barrel)

[Dr. Frank fan]

Since this seems to be a battle to see who can quote the most words from my post, I'll up the ante. Here is what I wrote:

#147 was written in such a way so as to make things simpler for you to comprehend

Again, this doesn't mean that #147 "was simple", as you apparently thought (cf. your post #161). It means that it was written in such a way so as to make things simpler for you to comprehend. Like I said.

And yes, this was primarily a statement about yourself. It was not an intrinsic statement about post #147. For example: I would not say that #147 was written in such a way so as to make things simpler for me to comprehend. Or most other Freepers.

Just you.

Get it now? ;)

[thtr]

And I said that #147 was hardly simple (“written in such a way so as to make things simpler for you to comprehend”) but was indeed detailed and thoughtful.

Not only are you incapable of reading your own posts, you also seem to be unable to read others. Perhaps this is why you’re not taken seriously and your only hope of engaging others in extended discussion is through these silly flames.

[Dr. Frank fan]

And I said that #147 was hardly simple

I know you said that, and I agree with you. I never said it "was simple" to begin with.

Perhaps this is why you’re not taken seriously and your only hope of engaging others in extended discussion is through these silly flames.

I'll shut up when you shut up :)

Why don't you go look at posts #154 and its brilliant articulate extensive detailed response #155 and tell me who started the "silly flames", anyway. Thanks a bunch!

[exodus]

===============

To: alpowolf
"...It does appear that the SCOTUS has interpreted
the constitution to apply to anyone on US soil.
But what does this mean to US citizens traveling to other countries?

If I visit Canada, do I in effect forfeit my constitutional rights?"
# 13 by rogers21774
===============

That's a common mis-understanding, rogers21774.

Nobody has Constitutional rights,
every man has God-given rights.

Our Constitution's Bill of Rights only enumerates the rights, possessed by all men,
that will not be interfered with by our government.

Amendment # 1 - "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...(free speech, religion"
#2 - "...of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
# 3 - "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...
# 4 - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
# 5 - "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence 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..."
# 6 - "...the accused (not "the State") shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."
# 7 - "...right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
# 8 - "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
# 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny..."
# 10 - "...powers not delegated...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If you travel to a foreign country you haven't forfeited any rights you have.
However, you might have those rights "infringed with" while outside America.

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
I believe your assessment on only CITIZENS have rights
guaranteed by Constitution and Bill of Rights to be the correct one.
How can we protect rights of those under dictatorships and wacko-elitist Arab rulers?
# 3 by RasterMaster
===============

1) Our government doesn't "guarantee" our rights.
....The Constitution only recognizes our rights.

2) Freedom applies to countries as well as individuals.
....I have the right to discipline my kids,
....but I don't come into your house and discipline your kids.

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
In general, SCOTUS has held that Constitutional Protections extend to resident and non-resident aliens, which is why a deportation hearing is held before sending an illegal home. It is why arrestees are read their Miranda rights. It is why attorneys are provided by the State if the alien cannot afford one.
All Rights pertain but rights do not extend beyond the border so your statement about foreign governments is moot.
# 4 by The Shootist
===============

All people, citizens, resident aliens, non-resident aliens,
illegal aliens, people in America, people in Asia,
all people, anywhere in the world, have all the rights of men.

True, the United States isn't Constitutionally allowed
to respond to injustices against non-citizens outside of our borders,
but those rights extend beyond any border,
whether recognized by a government or not.

[ladyinred]

Certainly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the citizens of the United States. The past several years, the living breathing constitution has changed. Our forefathers were not PC and did not expect this nation to become so diverse and therefore they were wrong in their nationalism.
This is the view of the powers that be, or have been, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is ridiculed and would probably be tarred and feathered if they persisted in their bigoted views.

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
"...They have no 2nd rights to infringe in Britian,
because there are no gun rights in Britain..."
# 5 by Bommer
===============

Any man, anywhere, has the God-given right to have a weapon.

That doesn't mean that he won't be arrested, of course.
That applies even here in America.

Apparently, "shall not be infringed"
can be interpreted to mean "shall not be tolerated"

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
Certainly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the citizens of the United States. The past several years, the living breathing constitution has changed. Our forefathers were not PC and did not expect this nation to become so diverse and therefore they were wrong in their nationalism. This is the view of the powers that be, or have been, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is ridiculed and would probably be tarred and feathered if they persisted in their bigoted views.
# 170 by ladyinred
===============

I believe, ladyinred, that the Bill of Rights was meant to apply to citizens.

I don't have a problem with illegally expanding them to apply to non-citizens,
but that is just a reflection of my "fanatic" views on the rights of men.

Legally, to apply the governmental restrictions of the Bill of Rights
to non-citizens would require a Constitutional Amendment.

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
"...my first thought is that it would cover anyone who is on U.S. soil.
After all, aren't foreign visitors obliged to obey our laws when they're here?
If the BOR doesn't apply to them, how do any other laws?..."
# 6 by alpowolf
===============

I would expect that the Bill of Rights would apply to legal resident-aliens.

[exodus]

===============

To: RebelDawg
All persons within the borders of the USA are protected
by our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
This is why the Constitution refers to the people and persons and not citizens.
# 11 by CharacterCounts
===============

Taken in context,
I believe that the Bill of Rights,
and the rest of the Constitution,
apply only to the United States,
and to United States citizens.

The Constitution is, after all,
a document concerned with creating a government,
and detailing how that government will interact with it's citizens.

[boris]

Unfortunately the illegals and enemy aliens are covered by the BoR. If we had a formal declaration of war, it would be much easier to deport the enemy aliens.

I have argued that an amendment is needed to change the words "person" and "people" to "citizen" throughout the Constitution.

The repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment should also be a priority. In particular, citizenship should not--and must not--be based upon the location in which one is born. Quite simply, if one or both parents is a citizen, the child should be a citizen. If neither parent is a citizen, the child should not be a citizen.

American Citizenship should be precious, and confer certain rights that should not pertain to non-citizens.

--Boris

[exodus]

===============

To: RasterMaster; RebelDawg
The BoR only enumerates Rights granted by GOD to all of mankind. The differentiation lies, for instance, in the Second Amendment. Only AMERICANS enjoy the RKBA legally! Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the BoR, granting legal RKBA to any other nation. The only Rights we enjoy are the Rights we defend from abrogation by the government.

The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression when they wrapped them selves in the American Flag. American flag wavers merely confuse the issue about patriotism. Exercise your uniquely American LEGAL RKBA!
# 12 by dhuffman@awod.com
===============

I believe that you mis-understand the concept of a right, dhuffman@awod.com.

You said,
"Only AMERICANS enjoy the Right to Keep and Bare Arms legally!"
"Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the Bill of Rights..."
"The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression..."

1) If there were not a Bill of Rights, I would still have rights.

2) If I weren't an American, I would still have rights.

3) If there were laws against rights, I would still have rights.

4) Whether American or not,
NOBODY has the "right to lethal political expression"

5) People who believe in a "right to lethal political expression,"
whether individual or government,
are a major reason that others realized
that they needed to protect themselves.

[exodus]

===============

"Unfortunately the illegals and enemy aliens are covered by the Bill of Rights...".
===============

The Bill of Rights lists restrictions on our government in it's dealings with United States citizens. Giving non-citizens the same protections citizens have is a threat to national security, which any government is required to provide it's citizens.

The inclusion of illegals is un-Constitutional.
To legally include illegal non-citizens would require a Constitutional Amendment.

[exodus]

===============

"...If we had a formal declaration of war,
it would be much easier to deport the enemy aliens..."
# 175 by boris
===============

Also, if we had a formal Declaration of War,
we wouldn't be violating the Constitution with our un-declared war.

Without a Declaration of War,
we are illegally violating the freedom
of a sovereign nation.

Why is it so hard for our leaders to follow the Constitution?
With an almost unanimous agreement on a "use of force,"
why is a legal, declared war so hard?

Ron Paul can see that.
He's trying to get that Declaration of War from our Congress.

[exodus]

===============

"...The repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment should also be a priority.
In particular, citizenship should not--and must not--be based upon the location in which one is born.
Quite simply, if one or both parents is a citizen, the child should be a citizen.
If neither parent is a citizen, the child should not be a citizen.
# 175 by boris
===============

A repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment would be a mistake.
We would lose-

"...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..."

"...(No State shall) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Those are important restrictions on our government,
and I don't want to lose them.

[RasterMaster]

But you'd discipline someone else's kid if they were a guest at your house and set your kitchen on fire! {whether or not some liberal says it's "okay"}