Who does the Bill of Rights cover?

This Week | 2 Dec 01 | Bob Barr

[H.Akston]

Bob Barr just said on Sam and Cokie's show that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution covers "persons", not just citizens, and "the Bill of Rights applies to all persons on our soil."

[go star go]

Dread Scott? Slaves could not own guns because they were non-citizens. Remember that?

[Gumption]

President Bush's executive order regarding "trials" before military tribunals of resident aliens (or anyone other than citizens) which do not observe these Constitutional protections is legally and morally wrong,

What about the 5th? Even if you think all persons, citizens or not, are guaranteed due process, as I do, you have to admit that these cases have arisen "in time of war or public danger." Or does that only apply to members of our own Militia? I'm so confused?

5th Amendment

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;

[kennyo]

Bravo!The bill of rights does not "cover" anyone,it limits the power of the federal government.THIS covers everyone.And remember the psychotic Thornburg doctrine,in which it was held that the protections erected agianst the federal government did not extend to foreigners,justifying kidnapping Mexicans(from Mexico!)in the war on drugs,and of course,Manuel Noriega. The bill of rights constricts the activities of the government!

[go star go]

Check with the BATF. They have other ideas about resident aliens...

[exodus]

To: tex-oma
The first ten amendments say what they say.
Look at the text of each -- e.g.
Third -- "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house"
[Not, "in the house of any citizen"]
Fifth -- "No person shall be held to answer for a . . . crime
[except by indictment, etc.]" [not "no citizen . . . ."].
Some amendments are limited to citizens:
Fifteenth -- "The right of citizens . . . to vote shall not be denied
[on account of race]."
Read the text of each, and you'll see who they apply to.
# 35 by BohDaThone
*******************

To: BohDaThone
Read the Text
of the FIRST 7 WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION,
to see who the Constitution,
and everything in it, applies to.
# 50 by H.Akston
************

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form..."

That sounds like man-made law to me.
It has no bearing on our God-given rights.

[Gumption]

Let's start over. What did you mean when you asserted the obvious observation that only the first 10 amendments are the bill of rights? Do you think that being one of the first 10 amendments is somehow more important than the other amendments? Again, what did you mean?

[LizM]

If the terrorists were to be tried in our courts, under our law, they would have protection of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. But what we had on 9/11 was an act of war from an external power. It was an act of war and not a civil action. The terrorists have claimed this much is true and have placed themselves outside Constitutional protection by their own choice.

As an example, during World War II German agents landed on Long Island by submarine, disguised as civilians with plans to commit sabotage. They were apprehended and tried by secret military commission authorized by President Roosevelt. Six out of the original eight were executed.

By their own choice or acts of war against the United States, they placed themselves outside Constitutional protection. That's how I see this question of Constitutional protection of rights extended to foreigners.

[Iwo Jima]

"You seem to be suggesting that our unalienable rights are given to us by the Constitution."

"That must be true because I don't have those rights as an American in another country, do I?"

Yes, in many cases you do. The Supreme Court has held that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights against ACTIONS BY OUR GOVERNMENT apply to actions taken BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT in this country or in other countries. But this is an area in which I do believe that they have made a difference between citizens and non-citizens. For example, if you are in Mexico and the DEA follows you and illegally searches your luggage, your 4th Amendment rights have been violated even though the acts did not occur in this country. This is pretty much a common sense approach. You wouldn't want the government to be able to stalk, trick, lure, or drag you until you were out of the country and then beat a "confession" out of you.

[Chemnitz]

Whom - object of cover.

[A.J.Armitage]

I wish I'd come on the thread earlier, so more people could read my reply and not be confused by you. Lately I've become a sort of point man on the Constitution.

Doesn't he realize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution clearly identifies who is covered by the words "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES", and that not everyone on this soil is "OF THE UNITED STATES"?

Okay, you're evidently confused about what "we the people of the United States" refers to in the Constitution. It's not the people covered by the Constitution. For one thing, the Constitution is the charter of government, so everyone under the government is covered, by definition. "We the people of the United States," for several stated reasons, "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's a citation of the authority issuing the Constitution. If the president signed something starting out, "I, George W. Bush, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States..." you wouldn't think it only applied to him, would you? Same thing here.

If you want to see who has certain protections, look to the sections about those protections.

[nonliberal]

Perhaps we should add "kamikaze tourists" to the fifth.

[Gumption]

If you want to see who has certain protections, look to the sections about those protections.

What sections or amendments do you think apply to non citizens?

[JD86]

That foreign government can legally infringe upon your rights, but the rights given to you by God, as part of being a man, are still there. They are just being interfered with by man-made laws.

And when you are in a foreign prison or facing a foreign execution my dear, that is a distinction without a difference.

[A.J.Armitage]

Ok Tex, so the Constitution applies to all who are on our soil? So this means that if there is an invasion by say, Red China, we can't just shoot people in the uniform of Red China on sight, we have to call a cop to arrest them?

If you're going to talk about the effects of the Constitution applying to an invasion (which of course it does), the logical thing to do is to read the Constitution itself to see what it says. Here's a quotation from Article IV, 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

So, then, the federal government is required to fight off any invasion, since an invasion of the United States necessarily involves invading particular states.

[SusanUSA]

Again, what did you mean?

The article referred to comments made about the Bill of Rights. The arguments in the replies I read were referring to the Constitution (First lines) and the Bill of Rights. I was confused when the 14th ammendment was brought up by a couple of posters. I was merely pointing out that, as you put it, OBVIOUSLY only the first TEN ammendments belong under the title "Bill Of Rights". So why bring in the 14th, etc?

I would like to know why we ask immigrants to become citizens if they are entitled to the same rights as citizens? What would be their incentive? Just to be able to vote? ILLEGAL aliens are able to do THAT already.

[mdittmar]

But according to Mr Barr it's too harsh on our non-citizen enemies but OK for the sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, sisters and mothers in uniform today and veterans past ?

Good point.

From the Supreme Court case of the Germans that were caught in the United States:

UNITED STATES ex rel. QUIRIN v. COX, Brig. Gen., U.S.A., Provost Marshal of the Military District of Washington, and 6 other cases.

We cannot say that Congress in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments intended to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war otherwise triable by military commission, while withholding it from members of our own armed forces charged with infractions of the Articles of War punishable by death. It is equally inadmissible to construe the Amendments- [317 U.S. 1, 45] whose primary purpose was to continue unimpaired presentment by grand jury and trial by petit jury in all those cases in which they had been customary-as either abolishing all trials by military tribunals, save those of the personnel of our own armed forces, or what in effect comes to the same thing, as imposing on all such tribunals the necessity of proceeding against unlawful enemy belligerents only on presentment and trial by jury. We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

[backup]

FOR THE TEN MILLIONETH TIME, the Bill of Rights "covers" the US GOVERNMENT!! Not People. Not Citizens.

The Government may pass no law prohibiting freedom of the Press.
The Government may pass no law establishing a religion.
The Government may pass no law restricting the right to bear arms.
The Government may not inflict cruel and unusual punishments.
The Government may not quarter soldiers in people's homes.

Etc., etc., etc.

To ask if the Bill of Rights applies to citizens or non-citizens MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT!!!

The Government only has the powers the Constitution gives it. The Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY list certain powers the Government DOES NOT HAVE.

Regarldess of whether non-citizens, citizens, goats, or martians are effected, Congress simply does not have the power to pass a law establishing a religion, or searching without a warrant, or convicting without a trial, or using compelled testimony, etc., etc.

You seem to think that the US Gov can do whatever it damn well pleases, limited only by certain "rights" ennumerated in the first 10 Amendments. That is entirely ass-backwards. Instead, the Government has only been given a handful of powers; the Bill of Rights technically WASN'T EVEN NECESSARY. Nowhere in Article I was Congress given the power to establish a religion. Therefore, the First Amendment is redundant. Ditto with the others. It was only because the Drafters knew there would be dunces like yourself that failed to comprehend the concept of delegated authority, that they added the Bill of Rights to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Government HAS NO AUTHORITY to pass certain types of laws. And even then you still don't get!!!

DRAFTERS: Article I sets forth the powers of Congress. If it ain't listed in there, it doesn't have the power. Got it?

H. ASKTON: Uh... Well, can it establish a religion?

DRAFTERS: Aren't you listening? I just told you Congress only has the powers listed in Article I. Do you see anything granting it the power to establish a religion?!

H. ASKTON: Duh... I guess not...

DRAFTERS: You "guess not"?! Look, let me make it crystal clear for you. We're going to put in a special amendment -- just for nimrods like you who are too lazy to read Article I. Here... Read this: "Congress shall make no Law establishing a religion." Got it now?

H. ASKTON: So... what you are saying is Congress can't pass those kinds of laws, right?

DRAFTERS: Right!

H. ASKTON: Never?

DRAFTERS: No never!

H. ASKTON: Under no circumstances?

DRATERS: No! Absolutely under no circumstances!!

H. ASKTON: Ok... Don't yell.. I think I got it...

DRAFTERS: Well, it's about time.

H. ASKTON: One more question...

DRAFTERS: What is it?

H. ASKTON: Can Congress pass a law establishing a religion for non-citizens?

DRAFTERS: ARRRGHHHH!!!!! YOU IDIOT!!!!! WHAT THE H*LL IS YOUR IQ?!!? I GIVE UP!!!

[Iwo Jima]

"Dread Scott? Slaves could not own guns because they were non-citizens. Remember that?"

What a reach! Slaves could not own guns, read or write, be out after dark, etc., etc., etc., note because they were not citizens but because they were slaves and as such not even considered "people." The country was full of recent and not so recent immigrants (non-citizens) who bought and owned guns. No one dared to hint that they could not legally do so.

[exodus]

"Which one or more of the first ten amendments
do you believe should not apply to non-citizens?"
# 116 by MadameAxe
*******************

To: MadameAxe
"How about the second?
I'm 100% behind the second amendment,
but I don't think it should apply to all foreigners here on student visas."
# 120 by Wissa
************

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on our government.
It is not a list of rights. Remember the history of our country.

Recall that -
Any man, no matter where he is from,
has always had the right to speak his mind, and to worship as he wills.

Any man, no matter where he was from,
has always had the right of self-defense.

Any man, no matter where he is from,
has always been safe from un-reasonable search and seizures.

Any man, no matter where he is from,
cannot be held answerable for a capital crime,
without the indictment of a Grand Jury.

Any man, no matter where he is from,
has always had the right of trial by jury.

Any man, no matter where he is from,
has always been safe from excessive bail,
and from and excessive punishment.

It's not just for citizens.

[go star go]

The Dread Scott decision was a court decision that ruled that slaves could not own guns because they were not citizens. They were here. In this country. On this soil. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to non-citizens.