Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who does the Bill of Rights cover?
This Week | 2 Dec 01 | Bob Barr

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."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: billofrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 701-714 next last
To: sneakypete
Here is one Indian who is ready to tell you that anybody who tried to deny ME my rights is not going to end up being a happy camper.

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.

261 posted on 12/02/2001 4:01:46 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
In truth, the BoR, just like the rest of the Constitution, is binding only on government. The entire set of 10 amendments consist of prohibitions and warnings directed at government. No rights were created in the BoR.
262 posted on 12/02/2001 4:02:43 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: schmelvin
Congress hasn't even formally declared war as per the Constitution

Maybe you could show me where the Constitution demands congress declare war before authorizing the use of force by the CIC?

263 posted on 12/02/2001 4:02:55 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
One of these obligations (and a BIGGIE!) is that they obey our laws. What the INS is SUPPOSED to be doing is making raids to arrest and deport people here ILLEGALLY.

But given the Constitution, you can't get there, as if they had the full rights, the law could not be made.

264 posted on 12/02/2001 4:03:22 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: lepton
On this I have to say that you're wrong, Wissa.

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.

265 posted on 12/02/2001 4:03:31 PM PST by Wissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
My understanding is it applies only to Americans on American soil. This is the big thing with Oregon, the ACLU and others; they perverted the truth and twisted it to say that terrorist cell groups and others have rights and are protected by our Bill of Rights to carry out their agenda on our soil. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Oregons case, it is to keep the Govt from burning their pot farms. In the case of the ACLU they hate America and will pervert the writing of the Constitution any way they can to bring us to a Socialist society. We have laws when dealing with them, but they do not have the same protection AMERICANS have on American soil.
266 posted on 12/02/2001 4:04:05 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It doesn't and Bush, Ashcroft and others have already explained it. Some people refuse to listen.
267 posted on 12/02/2001 4:05:14 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
No rights were created in the BoR.

While no rights were created by the BOR, there are indeed enumerated rights and an amendment addressing that.

268 posted on 12/02/2001 4:05:32 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: go star go
Hah! I guess we can count you among those here who haven't bought a gun since the Brady bill was passed.
269 posted on 12/02/2001 4:05:59 PM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: schmelvin
I have apprehensions about this undeclared war utilizing secret tribunals to sentence a loosely defined group of enemies. What if Hillary becomes President in '08 with the power to determine who gets hauled into a secret military tribunal for sentencing under officials she appointed? And what would Little Miss VastRightWingConspiracy's idea of a terrorist be?

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.

270 posted on 12/02/2001 4:06:01 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; JD86
*******************

"...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.

271 posted on 12/02/2001 4:06:42 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The Bill of Rights recognizes inherent rights endowed to all men by the Creator

That being said, military tribunals are the appropriate forum for judging the guilt or innocence of combatants. That's why they are military tribunals.

272 posted on 12/02/2001 4:07:52 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: go star go
Then why is Sen Mccain concerned that terrorist can buy guns at a gun show.

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.

273 posted on 12/02/2001 4:10:42 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

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

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.

274 posted on 12/02/2001 4:10:42 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
"There CAN be differences of opinion on what the words of the Constitution mean though."

Of course, you are right. There are very few unanimous decisions by the United States Supreme Court. So, even people whose entire existance revolves around interpreting the Constitution can disagree.
275 posted on 12/02/2001 4:10:47 PM PST by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
It is hard to believe that someone named Tex-oma could be a liberal of extreme dimensions, but to attack someone you disagree with by calling them a moron and then declaring your opinion as gospel, without even a smidgen of evidence to support it-sure smells liberal.

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.

276 posted on 12/02/2001 4:11:27 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cc2k
Note that the constitution starts "We the People" not "We the Citizens". It applies to all people (legally) in these United States, not just citizens.

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.

277 posted on 12/02/2001 4:12:59 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
What I want to know is why UN diplomats have more rights than I do as a citizen of the United States. I don't have diplomatic immunity from crimes. Why are they granted immunity in our country? I think diplomatic immunity should be discontinued. If they don't want to follow our laws, I think the UN should be moved out of the country.
278 posted on 12/02/2001 4:16:06 PM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton
The Germans came into our country in time of war. We had already declared war on Germany and Japan the year before. Even so, the German men were able to fight being assigned trials in the military courts. They fought it out in civilian courts, in wartime. There case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that, as spies and saboteurs in time of war, they actually could be tried by the military court system.

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.

279 posted on 12/02/2001 4:16:35 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
I'm here to learn so if anyone has the time to correct anything I've said , please do so....educate me........

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.

280 posted on 12/02/2001 4:17:38 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 701-714 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson