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."

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Well stop asking things that people already know the answer to yet refuse to admit! It's like tracking criminals. To know what they are going to do, you have to think like one. So try to think "stupid" on your next question to these people and you may get some replies. Okay? :)

[lepton]

Actually, it's a Military Order. He's not creating a new authority, but noting how he intends to use an existing one...

[exodus]

"...As a career serviceman I was subject to military justice (UCMJ) for 26 years.
But according to Mr Barr it's too harsh on our non-citizen enemies..."
# 102 by Squantos
***************************

"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 by sneakypete
*******************

To: sneakypete
If they were inalienable, then could they be signed away?
# 291 by lepton
************

The rights are not signed away, lepton.
They are temporarily put aside, in the name of duty.

The military is a part of our government that is allowed to infringe upon it's members rights to promote necessary discipline. Someone who doesn't obey orders is a danger to himself and others.

That obedience to orders isn't expected of ordinary citizens.

Just as in time of war or national emergency the rights of ordinary citizens would be infringed temporarily, so a soldier accepts temporary curtailment of his rights to fulfill his duty.

[Texasforever]

Very good distinction. Thanks

[lepton]

The rights are not signed away, lepton. They are temporarily put aside, in the name of duty.

Yes, which is why you can be prosecuted in a military court, but not a civilian one.

[backup]

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.

Good God almighty... You still don't get it, do you?

How many dozens of posters have explained this to you so far?

Think of it this way...

WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH A RELIGION FOR NON-CITIZENS?

WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO IMPRISON NON-CITIZENS WITHOUT A TRIAL?

WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO QUARTER TROOPS IN THE HOMES OF NON-CITIZENS?

WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INFLICT CRULE AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ON NON-CITIZENS?

WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT A NON-CITIZEN'S FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE?

WHAT CLUASE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO SIEZE OR SEARCH A NON-CITIZEN'S PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT?

Is it beginning to sink in yet?

[lepton]

Just as in time of war or national emergency the rights of ordinary citizens would be infringed temporarily, so a soldier accepts temporary curtailment of his rights to fulfill his duty.

So, how does that work with foreigners or non-citizens? Are they exempt? Does this somehow not apply to them?

[Iwo Jima]

"So, you do not think that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were acts of war?"

I have very deliberately avoided voicing such an opinion or basing any of my opinions on the answer to that question.

I am turning over in my own mind what it means to be attacked by a group of people who do not constitute a government. Very definitely, we have been attacked. It is an act of aggression. It constitutes "hostilities." We are justified in responding with all of the force which we have used in response to these unprovoked acts of aggression. I totally support the "war" effort and President Bush's use of the military to retaliate against these aggressors.

But is it "war" in the Constitutional sense of the term? War against whom? They call it the "War against Terror." But you can't have war against an idea, a concept. How would you ever know if you had won? Would the idea cry "uncle?" You must go to war against somebody, so that once you have killed all of them or they have surrendered, you can know that the war is over. That will never happen in a "War against Terror," because we will always have terror with us, for the rest of our lives and beyond.

Of this I am certain: IF this is a war according to our Constitution and if that matters under our Constitution, then the Congress should declare that it is a war. Even if another entity declares war against us or commits an act of war against us, only we can state if as a result of that act we are in a state of war. Many "acts of war" are overlooked, excused, forgotten, and there is never any war (e.g., the Cuban missile crisis). That is why when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we still had to declare that we were at war. Nobody gets to tell us or decide for us that we are at war. How presumptious could they be? They not only attack us, but presume to dictate to us whether or not we will be at war with them? What arrogance!

Can anyone explain to me why, if it is so obvious that we are at war, that Congress would not make a simple delaration of that fact? That is what I truly do not understand. Of what possible benefit would it be to not make that declaration if is such a clear-cut thing? If Congress declared that we were at war, I might or might not agree with the wisdom of that statement, but I could hardly disagree with the fact -- we would without a doubt be at war.

I am sorrry to be so long-winded, but it is a complex question in my mind. My best assessment is that, yes, the attacks of 9/11 were acts of war, but we are not "at war" until Congress says so. And to date it has not.

I rather wish that it would, and resolve the ambiguity.

[H.Akston]

"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."

The "People" protected by the Bill of Rights are "Of the United States", and not "Of Some Other Country". What Barr said was just too sweeping. The first thing you know he'll be sending welfare checks to illegals for "equal protection".

[JD86]

If anyone asks you if you've ever heard of Jury Nullification, say with a straight face, "No."

You have an interesting view of jury duty when you encourage jurors to lie.

[DAnconia55]

I'm not sure if noncitizens actually have the same rights as citizens or not.

But we're sure.

[jwalsh07]

There is nothing in the Constitution that compels Congress to declare war in order to authorize the CIC to prosecute war on our enemies, be they amorphous or otherwise.

I honestly don't understand the hangup here.

Civil libertarians are always concerned with Presidential overreach so the Congress post Nixon, comes up with the War Powers Act which, be it constitutional or unconstitutional, has the effect of limiting Presidential power as written.

[lepton]

Article. IV.

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[DAnconia55]

Governments are a cancer on life.

We must find another method of organization.

[deport]

Can anyone explain to me why, if it is so obvious that we are at war, that Congress would not make a simple delaration of that fact? That is what I truly do not understand. Of what possible benefit would it be to not make that declaration if is such a clear-cut thing?

Interesting question to say the least... I read somewhere but couldn't find it now if I had to that President Bush preferred Congress not declare a state of war so as to protect the rights of those involved with losses for insurance purposes... If President Bush actually felt or expressed that opinion I don't know.

[jwalsh07]

Yes, which is why you can be prosecuted in a military court, but not a civilian one.

Not true, I speak from the experience of a misspent youth.

[JD86]

Okay exodus....I have listened to this drivel for weeks that we are not at war because there was not a formal declaration of war. You are still wrong....but I have a question. Exactly which nation would you have Congress declared war against? Because that is what Congress does, it declares war against nations. Comments?

[backup]

Are you trying to make a point, or just cutting and pasting random passages from the Constitution?

[exodus]

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.
# 292 by exodus
*******************

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 describes 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.
# 300 by lepton
************

Yes, it is a part of the document, I didn't say it wasn't.
I said the Preamble was only an introduction,
said nothing that had any legal application,
and conferred no power to any branch of government.

Preamble:
1) an introductory statement;
especially :
the introductory part of a constitution or statute
that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law.

Of course the Constitution only applies to people under our jurisdiction,
as recognized by the 14th Amendment,
and not to people in other lands.

[sobieski]

It's clear our rights are conferred "by our Creator", not the Federales. Governments are instituted to protect those rights. They are not given to us by the government. So any person in America has them, legal or illegal as their residence may be. If the government abrogates its responsibilities by allowing an illegal to be here, that doesn't change his inherent rights.