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."

[lepton]

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.

Just to be clear: Although addressed to be, those are not my words... :)

[H.Akston]

"so everyone under the government is covered, by definition"

So who is and isn't "under the government"?

Where do you get off having our government protecting the free speech and liberty of illegals who are on our soil? That's an inevitable consequence of what Barr said. He made no exceptions.

Deport'em. Get them out of here.

[cidrasm]

Then why is Sen Mccain concerned that terrorist can buy guns at a gun show. If they are protected by the 2nd amendment then they can buy them legally at a gun show.

His concern is less about terrorists and more about restricting the right to bear arms. Your question sidestepped the argument that you replied to which said "The Bill of Rights does not address one's right to be here (i.e., immigration). It does address your rights while you are here (other than the right to be here). ". McCain knows darn well that foreigners that are here legally that haven't committed a crime are covered by the 2nd Amendment. McCain is only trying to dredge up the "most criminals get their guns at gun shows" lie with a different twist. The fact that you bring this up tells me you know that the Constitution covers those non-citizens in this country who are here legally with respect to those rights that are covered for non-citizens.

[Wissa]

I think diplomatic immunity should be discontinued.

So you'd be in favor of American ambassadors and other state deprtment personnel not having diplomatic immunity in other countries?

[lepton]

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.

The courts regularly take cases where they decide if the plaintiff has standing. That doesn't mean that the courts have recognized rights beyond that.

[H.Akston]

Amen!

[cidrasm]

Please note that the Preamble to the Constitution expresses WHO is creating the document, not who is COVERED by the document. I thought that was fairly self-evident.

[lepton]

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.

War was declared upon us. From the time of Washington through now, it has been recognized that that is sufficient for the President to conduct a war. The difference in the Declaration, is the other domestic powers that the Executive branch gets, which Congress appears to have decided were not neccessary. The Tribunal issue is a matter of conducting the war - one the militrary has long had, and which the President advised he was going to use - and of foreign policy.

[lepton]

That's not true, lepton. The Germans weren't trying to claim any rights.

Sure they were. They were claiming they had a right to a trial in U.S. courts. That's where you started.

[sneakypete]

But do you think resident aliens should be able to buy guns at gun stores.

I can't speak for Iwo Jima,but I sure agree with that. My friend from Holland has been living here legally over 20 years,and he has more guns than I do. I also had foreign friends from England,Canada,and Germany who served in the US Army in VN as infantry soldiers. Surely you don't object to THEM owning guns,do you?

You do realize that most of the 9/11 terrorist were here legally?

Wrong. Most CAME here legally,but their visas had expired,and they were living here illegally when they hijacked the airplanes. Why not ask your friend Bubba Bush what he plans on doing about illegal aliens?

If the 2nd Amendment applies to them then they could buy guns legally.

Is there supposed to be something wrong with this? What? Are you saying the gooberment should have been able to predict these individuals were going to become terrorists,or have you now gone "full-Dim" and expect the gooberment to mind-read and determine ahead of time who is going to remain harmless,and who is going to become a criminal?

[lepton]

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.

If they were inalienable, then could they be signed away?

[exodus]

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.
# 243 by cc2k
*******************

To: cc2k
"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 by lepton
************

The "Preamble" is an introduction.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"...the People of the United States...establish this Constitution..."

It doesn't specify "for citizens only,"
and it doesn't give any power to any branch of our government.
The Preamble has no legal application at all.
It is the introduction to the legal document.

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps you could point me to the section of the Constitution requiring Congress to declare war in order to authorize the CIC to prosecute the same?

[lepton]

Please note that the Preamble to the Constitution expresses WHO is creating the document, not who is COVERED by the document. I thought that was fairly self-evident.

O.K. Where do they get the right to subject others to it?

[sneakypete]

Well, you know, foreigners are dangerous things.

I think you have a type there. I think it is supposed to be spelled "furriners".

. And you sure don't want a foreigner to think he is worth the same as a 'homelander'

"Homeland Uber Alles!" "Heil Bubba Bush!

[sneakypete]

Ironically enough,the majority of the people I've seen on FR talking this nonsense are rapid Bubba Bush supporters,yet his wildest wet dream is to "naturalize" every illegal alien in America,and half of Mexico.

[sneakypete]

). They do NOT, however, have the right to vote.

YET! Give Bubba Bush time,and he'll fix this little problem,though.

[jwalsh07]

I think its my breath, I pose questions and nobody ever answers them.

[Texasforever]

So, my question to you, and to everyone, is - would everyone be more comfortable if the Bush Executive Order explicitly stated that tribunals applied only to non-resident non-citizens(e.g., aliens outside the territories and protectorates of the United States)?

Actually the EO does state that:

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or (iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and

(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.

[lepton]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is a statement of purpose. It defines who it was intended to apply to and to what ends. It describes DOMESTIC tranquility, not tranquility between nations or between the universe of peoples. It describesw COMMON DEFENSE, for those who form the "common". It says that it does so for those who join into it and their descendants, not for the Chinese. The United States is the union of States...this union being consented to by the people of those States...not by the Huns in Hungaria, nor the other peoples. It IS a part of the document.