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."
Actually, this has been addressed by treaty and U.S. law. If you are recognized as an Indidan, you have your own special set of rights which largely overlap with those of ordinary U.S. Citizens.
Maybe you could show me where the Constitution demands congress declare war before authorizing the use of force by the CIC?
But given the Constitution, you can't get there, as if they had the full rights, the law could not be made.
I see your point, but as it applies in the general, (as opposed to a specific case as you bring up), it looks to me like the SCOTUS is THE final word on what the Constitution means. If they would say that the 2nd applies only to the state's right to have a National Guard.... then that becomes the law of the land. The big problem we have, is that the government does not follow the Constitution. When Congress passes laws they do not have the authority to pass... and when a Supreme Court says the law means what they WISH it says, rather that what it clearly says. We granted them the power to make those decisions, and until we amend the Constitution to allow the people to overrule their decisions... they ARE the final word.... IMO.
While no rights were created by the BOR, there are indeed enumerated rights and an amendment addressing that.
Well, to be legitimate, she'd first have to figure out under what authority she would do so. The current President does so under a combination of his powers to prosecute a war as Commander-in-Chief and his powers to conduct foreign policy.
"...If the German saboteurs had worn Kriegsmarine uniforms, they would have spent the rest of the war in P.O.W. camps and probably would have been given a grudging amount of respect for their daring by the American newspapers.
For exercising the right of any American resident to dress as he pleases, they were executed.
When you are a combatant, your "rights" are not the same as "all the other rights" of the residents of the country you are at war with.
# 225 by Polybius
************
What did you think I said, Polybius?
Did you think that I said "Terrorists need love, too?"
They were spies, trying to commit sabotage in time of war.
They deserved to die.
They still had rights, just like anyone else, as was recognized by our court system at the time, by the simple act of accepting jurisdiction and allowing the Germans to challenge our law in open court.
On a related note, any captured terrorist is entitled to a trial by a civilian jury. It's a crime against the country, and not a matter for military justice except in time of emergency.
If you don't like that, we could declare war legally, in Congress instead of in the news media. The President holding a press conference, saying "We are at war" and illegally assuming war powers is not of the same weight as a legal Declaration of War from Congress.
That being said, military tribunals are the appropriate forum for judging the guilt or innocence of combatants. That's why they are military tribunals.
He's not. He's just "posturing" to try and get votes from the terminally stupid and other Dims for his next presidential run. McCain is both a fool,and a liar.
You are quite probably the dumbest person on this page. OF COURSE I REALIZE THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS A LIST OF THINGS THAT RESTRICT GOVERNMENT (OR FORCE IT TO ACT IN A "SPEEDY" FASHION). THE SUBJECT IS: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT THE US/STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ACTING ON ADVERSELY BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
You're so quick to assume that I'm an idiot, that you miss the point entirely.
Personally I agree with H.Akston, as to his definition of we the people of the United States of America, and challange you to present any documentation whatsoever that supports Barr's allegation that every sonovabitch on earth, has equal rights and benefits under our Constitution as native born and naturalized citizens of this Republic.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but in my opinion Barr is proving to be one hell of a disappointment during America's time of need.
Note that the constitution starts "We the People [OF THE UNITED STATES]". It is a contract between those who have granted the government certain authorities and that government. BTW, please advise as to when all governments will be Republican in form...and when we can start collecting taxes from them.
I would point out, ninenot, that if spies and saboteurs captured in wartime were accepted as having the right to challenge the court system, they legally, according to our courts, have all other rights as well.
# 218 by exodus
*******************
To: exodus
I would point out, ninenot, that if spies and saboteurs captured in wartime were accepted as having the right to challenge the court system, they legally, according to our courts, have all other rights as well.
"That does not follow logically.
They were trying to claim that they had other rights,
and were denied.
# 256 by lepton
************
That's not true, lepton.
The Germans weren't trying to claim any rights.
They understood the American system, and knew that in civilian court, they would get by with a few years in jail and then deportation home after the war was over. They hadn't committed any crime, they had just planned to blow up things.
However, "planning" to blow up things in wartime
is called sabotage by the military courts,
and is punishable by death.
Basically,you signed away your citizenship rights when you enlisted and took the oath. As a citizen,you have the right to give up your rights for the length of the contract. You no longer have Constitutional rights,only rights GRANTED under the UCMJ. Now that you are no longer in uniform,you are a full-flegded citizen again.
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.