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."

[Iwo Jima]

"You said noone seriously argued that aliens couldn't own guns. Are you running away from that statement now?"
No. I do not take what the BATF says about the right to keep and bear arms seriously. Obviously, you do.

[A.J.Armitage]

No problem. Educating the masses is what I live for. :-)

[Gumption]

If we want to make millions more Osamas, a tribunal will be the way to go.

If you want a million Osama's to walk away free men because their attorney made sure there was at least one muslim on the jury, a regular jury trial is the way to go.

[Gumption]

Where is the INS named in the Constitution?

Article 1, section 8,

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

and section 8 ends with ...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

[Squantos]

"apparently" wasn't what I sought, I'll keep looking ...... Stay Safe !

[Gumption]

So all Muslims think Osama is a good guy?

No, just the ones the defense attorney allows to sit on the jury.

Did you see the OJ trial?

[general_re]

I agree - I think that would change everything, as I said. As for whether they'd be unwise or unnecessary, I think I'll have to consider that further. I should point out that the splashy Nuremburg-style trials were reserved mostly for high-ranking officials of the Third Reich - I believe that many of the lesser lights were simply subjected to military tribunals and dispatched forthwith.

Oh, I have a word to say about that special case of the American citizen who went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban and has now been captured.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That guy got captured? OMG, I must have missed that - that's too funny!

It's poetic, pure poetry... ;)

You wouldn't have a source for that offhand, would you? I know some folks who would appreciate the irony of that...

[A.J.Armitage]

There'a an article about it here.

[Iwo Jima]

"US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), pretty clearly states that extraterritorial aliens are not generally entitled to the protections of the Constitution."

Your reference to "extraterritorial aliens" made me LOL! I keep thinking "ET -- phone home."

Verdugo-Urquidez, as I recall, involved a search which wouldn't pass muster under the 4th Amendment of a Mexican citizen in Mexico either by the U.S government (DEA?) or by the Mexican government at the urging of the U.S. government. Somehow or other, the DEA got him to this country and proceeded to prosecute him, using the fruits of the illegal search in Mexico. The SCOTUS did a pretty thorough review of how the Bill of Rights applies to various people under a variety of circumstances before concluding that the 4th Amendment didn't apply to the facts of that case. I don't think that I have a problem with that ruling.

My main point is this: it is patently wrong to say that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. However, it is too broad a statement to say that the Bill of Rights does apply to non-citizens. Most of the time it does, but the Supreme Court has identified some rather narrow circumstances in which it does not. Most of these rulings seem to be to be well-reasoned, and I cannot think of a single case which held that a particular amendment did not apply to a particular non-citizen for a particular reason with which I had serious disagreement.

[eskimo]

No problem. Educating the masses is what I live for. :-)

May you live a hundred years and have many children to follow in your footsteps.

I think that’s a close translation of what my ancestors used to acknowledge a doer of noble deeds.

[LizM]

Actually, I hope Osama is offed by one of his own but if he was tried in our courts (not military), there would be great risk to the Judge and jury not to mention risk to intelligence agencies or people providing proof by Muslim extremists who follow and are sympathetic to bin Laden.

That's why I feel the military court is preferable.

Re blaming a military court for making more Osamas; there are already Muslim extemists ready to fill Osamas shoes if he is offed or brought to justice. If he manipulates the court system, that will encourage more Osamas.

With the tribunals, any idea of escaping justice or manipulating American laws and generosity is out of the picture--not very encouraging.

[Squantos]

Thanks, thought provoking article. What's your opinion of post 136 on this thread.

IMHO no one really knows what the procedures are currently or will be in the near future. My personal opinion is that all we see now is speculation on our part. As I stated earlier , I don't know. Just my opinion based on what I have read to date.

Stay Safe and Thanks again for the link !

[ThJ1800]

The preamble of any document, including the Constitution, is a statement of intent, not law, therefore, whatever is contained in the Preamble is a statement of intent and what comes after it is law.

If the Constituiton only applies to those who are citizens of this country, can we legitimately prosecute those who break the laws written under that document and who are not citizens of this US?

[OldFriend]

Since 'persons' signifies human beings, the Taliban and their evil cohorts do not qualifty.

[Gumlegs]

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.

Cite? I've never heard before that Dred Scott had to do with firearms ownership. But feel free to do some mining here if you wish.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The bill of rights does not "cover" anyone,it limits the power of the federal government.THIS covers everyone.

Well, we are almost in agreement, but not completely. The Bill of Rights restricts the actions of government, obviously. But it doesn't restrict government actions towards foreigners in the same way that it restricts government actions towards citizens.

If it did, wars would be impossible, because they would violate the right to life of foreigners.

The unavoidable conclusion is that government is allowed to do some things to foreigners that it is not allowed (under, for example, the Bill of Rights) to do to citizens. In the terms of the way this debate has gone so far, one would phrase this as: "non-citizens aren't covered by the Bill of Rights", even though (as you and I seem to agree) it's basically a misnomer to speak of the Bill of Rights as "covering" anyone but the government.