Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by 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."
This would apply regardless of his legal or illegal status. IF he is illegal, he might be deported before he ever got a trial on the assault charge, but that is a separate question from whether parts of the constitution that apply to "persons" or that are a general restraint on government apply to everyone.
(a) If there were a constitutional violation in this case, it occurred solely in Mexico, since a Fourth Amendment violation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable governmental intrusion whether or not the evidence seized is sought for use in a criminal trial. Thus, the Fourth Amendment functions differently from the Fifth Amendment, whose privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. P. 264.They also went on to say that the precedent set in Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1955) was not applicable, since Reid dealt exclusively with the protections afforded to citizens while outside the US; thus, relying on Reid was a mistake by Verdugo-Urquidez.
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.
(c) The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Pp. 266-268.
(d) The view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the Government exercises its power is contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not all constitutional provisions apply to governmental activity even in territories where the United States has sovereign power. See, e. g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 . Indeed, the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment - which speaks in the relatively universal term of "person" - has been emphatically rejected. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 . Pp. 268-269.
You mean like the way people still argue about whether OJ was guilty or not? My point being, either way there will be arguments about whether justice was served or not. I would rather ultimate result of the trial be the RIGHT result. I have more faith that the correct result will be reached in a military trial where only two thirds of the "jury" have to agree for the guilty to get their just deserts. I hate the thought of ONE nut on a citizen jury letting a terrorist that killed thousands of my countrymen, go free.
I really think a military Tribunal will better administer justice in such a highly exposed case as this. A regular trial would be a circus.
You might look here.
It seems, to me at least, that there's a distinction between guys who just got off a submarine to cause damage and residents, even residents who are members of criminal conspiracies.
IMHO no one really knows what the procedures are currently or will be in the near future.
That's partly the problem I have with it. In Afghanistan is one thing, but I don't think it's a good idea or, probably, Constitutional to have them here.
They were given practically unlimited power over the capital, but not, of course, over anything else.
Just as all states were free to establish a religion for their state. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that states were prohibited from establishing a state religion, or disallowing free speech and so-on. The 1st amendment only prohibited congress from doing those things, not state legislatures.
Although each state had such restraints already within their own state constitutions.
To: exodus
"And when you are in a foreign prison
or facing a foreign execution my dear,
that is a distinction without a difference."
# 133 by JD86
************
Laws, and the reasons for those laws, make no difference?
If you believe that, why did you become a lawyer?
It matters to me, JD86.
Without that "unimportant" distinction,
it doesn't matter if a law is just,
it only matters if it is the law.
Announcement: All kneel before AJ!
To: Gumption
"...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?..."
# 135 by susangirl
************
We don't ask them to become citizens.
They ask for the favor of citizenship.
The reason they ask for citizenship is the opportunity to enjoy their rights.
Historically, governments infringe upon a man's rights.
People come here because they believe that they deserve better.
The short answer lies in the Declaration of Independence. Where the constitution is a practical document, the Declaration deals with principles, and beliefs, the ideas drove the Founders to revolt. I don't think that you can read one without the other.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Rights are granted by God to all men, and in THIS country, they are protected from government by a Constitution.
Having said that, foreigners do have rights under the Bill of Rights, AND they are expected to obey the laws of the land as well---a citizen of Denmark traveling in the US on vacation WILL be arrested for possesion of marijuana because US laws apply while he's here. If US laws apply to him while he's here, so does due proccess. He will be deported, but a Judge has to say so, it isn't a case of the arresting officer driving him to the airport and telling him to leave.
One last thing, if the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign nationals visiting the US, what stops me from grabbing a bunch of people traveling in from Japan on their way to a Disneyland vacation and making them my slaves?
I happen to believe as I feel my forefathers believed, that the government has no rights, unless the citizens of the government allow them to have rights. Following this thought process, the only way Osama etc would have rights is for him to be a citizen unles you believe it is the government that bestows rights upon it's citizens.
Having said that, I feel that we as citizens have passed laws over the last 200 years that spells out how non citizens should be treated. If there is no law, there is no protection, because what is not reserved for the government is held by the citizens and that does not include aliens and illegals. It especially does not include Osama.
Yes.
I understand your argument, in your opinon, your inalienable rights come from your Creator, and no government can either give them to you or take them away. I am telling you that is a wonderful argument to make in America. But in all the other countries of the world...they would consider it so much babbling as they led you away. They don't care about your inalienable rights, they don't care about your rights period. And they certainly don't have laws to protect you. Thank all you hold holy that you live in the United States. And if you don't think that is true. Thank all you hold holy that you are free to leave the United States any time you so choose.
Also, I believe the 14th Amendment narrows it down a bit further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.