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."

[Polybius]

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?

See my Post #324 where I discuss that very issue.

It is the same reason why a Declaration of War was never made during the Civil War.

[H.Akston]

It doesn't protect illegals.

[sneakypete]

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

Of course. They are YOUR rights. You can't sign away the rights of others,though.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Amen-BUMP!

[JD86]

See #324.....you have already been told the answer, you just choose to ignore it. But what else is new?

[schmelvin]

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

Thank you for addressing that, Wissa. Without diplomatic immunity, an American ambassador caught praying over his lunch in Communist China could be thrown in a gulag.

[Wissa]

Re: declaring war on Afghanistan...

I believe the recognized government of Afghanistan is the Northern Alliance. Those aren't the guys we're at war with.

[Texasforever]

Congress did not declare war on the Barbary Pirates see discussion Here

[mrsmith]

WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR'S CHEERIOS?
Reply 16 report of Barr's call in to Neil Boortz!

"Barr said that the only argument that the White House gave him for opposing an official (Constitutional) declaration was that Bush doesn't want to trigger "War Clauses" within insurance policies which would deny coverage to those suffering damage from the actions of our enemies. "

:-)

[lepton]

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?

The Congress did approve prosecuting, by military force, those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored them. They then went and allocated monies for it.

As to a declaration of war being required for any prosecution, see the Wars against the Beys of Tripoli (1795-1815). They were considered official wars by the pre-Jackson Presidents (not that those afterwards presented any different argument).

[sobieski]

Sure. He has the right to counsel, he has the right to be met only with the appropriate force, he has the right to a trial by jury, he has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, he has the right to expect that the laws in place are the ones that he will be charged with, he has the right to punishment that is not "cruel or unusual". So even a felon has rights. Know why? Because our rights are not derived from the Federal government.

[jwalsh07]

How about Afganistan, where we have been fighting an un-Constitutional, un-delared war for the last 2 months or so?

I've asked you to point out the section of the Constitution requiring Congress declare war before authorizing the CIC to commit troops. Will you be doing that anytime soon?

[H.Akston]

I read that on 9/11, there were several members of the Chinese media in our country. They cheered when they watched the WTC attacks on TV. They were told to leave the country. Hmmm... perhaps their right to free speech was denied. "

Bingo. Before our government denied them their liberty to stay here (in violation of their 5th Amendment rights, HAD THEY BEEN LEGAL CITIZENS), (Not to mention their free speech) they should have asked Armitage - he/she/it would have quartered them in his house. He and Barr throw some great republican parties, I hear.

[Polybius]

Congress declared war on the Barbary Pirates. They were not a nation. They were very similar to modern terrorists.

Wrong. Congress did not declare war during the Barbary War precisely because they were pirates and not a sovereign nation.

I documented that in Post #324.

In the Barbary War, Congress passed an authorization for the use of force. That is exactly what Congress has done in this case.

[JD86]

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

But let's not quibble about a two-bit war like the Barbary War. How about the bloodiest war in American history the Civil War; not "The Civil Time of Emergency" but "The Civil War".

Even in the Civil War, the United States of America never declared war on the Confederate States of America because the United States did not consider the Confederate States to be a sovereign nation.

See#324 for more. exodus has been given the answer...he just doesn't like it.

[afraidfortherepublic]

And my freedom to move about in Ireland was not restricted, but I did have to post the addresses in my itinerary upon entry. China had to approve my itinerary in advance, and I had to pay for it in advance.

If I have all these God given rights, how come I can't exercise them in other countries? I can't because my own country protects those God given rights for me, whereas other countries don't recognize them.

Do you think I could climb up on a soap box in Trafalger Square and foment a rebellion against the Queen? I rather doubt it. What about Tienamen Square? In China, we were not allowed to speak of politics at all.

A young man tried to engage me in a discussion of their one-child policy (which was new at that time). I could not discuss it with him for fear of arrest. We were not allowed to take pictures of anyone in a uniform. We were not allowed to look the guards in the eyes (sort of like Hillary!)

[DAnconia55]

They don't even have the legal right to work

Laws prohibiting a man from laboring for his own sustenance are immoral. (Read : Evil)

Morality is superior to Law.

A Moral right to Exist ranks higher than a legal prohibition on the right to exist. Which is what a law against employment is - whether it be anti-immigrant or pro-union.

[backup]

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 . Pp. 268-269. "

It's so amusing to see armchair attorneys make public fools of themselves.

The case you cited does NOT stand for the proposition that non-citizens' property may be searched and siezed at will.

Rather, the court was dealing with "an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States."

Indeed, the Court specifically mentioned the requirement of a Declaration of War by Congress: "The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a 'declared war' exists." 339 US 776.

Try again.

[lepton]

Of what possible benefit would it be to not make that declaration if is such a clear-cut thing?

Among other things, it would give the President sweeping DOMESTIC powers over citizens, and engage a whole slew of laws curtailing normal civil-rights. I expect that they did not consider that neccessary (Aside from the stuff in the "Patriot Act").

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Grand Juries are specifically affected during time of War.

[lepton]

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.

Perhaps I misspoke. You were prosecuted for a military offense in a civilian court (As opposed to merely being in the military while commiting a civilian-type offense)?