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."

[cidrasm]

It doesn't protect illegals.

I haven't been arguing that it does. If you'll look at my posts in this thread, I think I did caveat that the protections only applied to "legal" aliens in this country.

[deport]

thanks.... I knew I had read it somewhere but I couldn't remember where.

[Iwo Jima]

"If a burglar enters your home does he retain his rights?"

He certainly retains many rights, but he does not retain the right to not be shot dead by me. After that right has been extinguished forever, it is difficult to imagine of what practical significance his other rights might be.

[H.Akston]

It is so amusing to see you try to defend the indefensible.

read message 183. What is an extraterritorial alien?

[Sandy]

The question becomes, "Are combatants waging war against the United States on U.S. soil covered by the Bill of Rights.?"

No, that's not "the question". You're missing a major point. The purpose of the so-called trials is to determine whether the accused is a combatant (or one who aids combatants). If we're determining in advance that Joe Resident Alien is indeed a combatant, then why bother with a trial at all? What would be the point in having a trial for someone whom we've already declared guilty?

[ilgipper]

I am in agreement with you, and I feel Barr is dead wrong on this issue. The actions taken by Osama's boys within our borders are acts of war, and should be dealt with in a different manner than criminal activities.

Acts by those outside of our borders against our military or plotting against our citizens should not be handled in our criminal courts either.

[H.Akston]

Ok. :)

[lepton]

"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."

Another point, noted by Jefferson, was that we had been declared upon and attacked first.

[backup]

Regarding U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the case dealt with non-resident aliens who lacked a substantial connection to the US.

And even then, the actual issue in this line of cases has to do with the exclusion of evidence gained by illegal searches. The rule of exclusion is NOT part of the Constitution; it's a seperate issue altogether.

[exodus]

*******************

To: Iwo Jima
There is nothing in the Constitution that compels Congress to declare war in order to authorize the CIC to prosecute war on our enemies...
Civil libertarians are always concerned with Presidential overreach so the Congress (after) Nixon, comes up with the War Powers Act which, be it constitutional or unconstitutional, has the effect of limiting Presidential power as written.
# 312by jwalsh07
************

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. Without that Declaration, the President isn't authorized to attack other nations.

War Powers Act gives the President the power to use the military for 6 months before getting the approval of Congress. How does that qualify as a limit on the President's power? He could attack Engand or France, and doesn't have to worry about Congressional oversite.

The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution allowing Congress to deligate it's power to the President.

I want my government to act within the law.
I think that I deserve that.

[DAnconia55]

Ok then. If a burglar enters your home does he retain his rights?

Sure. Because you're trying (as usual) to cloud the issue.

His Rights against Government abuse are intact.
My moral right to kill him as an invader is also intact.

[Texasforever]

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.

That is the wrong answer. First, he did not have the right to enter your home. If you shoot him, you have negated his "right to life", if you apprehend him his "right" liberty, is also negated. His "rights" ended at the point he entered your home. An illegal alien has no right to enter my "home"/country in which I pay taxes to keep him out. When caught he has NO expectation of presumption of innocence, just being here negates that assumption. When that illegal alien commits a crime and is caught he has only the "right" to counsel and the "right" to a trial in whatever venue the government decides. IF that illegal alien is acquitted, he will be deported. The venue this administration has decided it will use are the military trials for non-citizens charged with terrorist activities. There is nothing unconstitutional at all in that action.

[mrsmith]

"If we're determining in advance that Joe Resident Alien is indeed a combatant"

Though not presently written into the Military Order (yes, that's a problem- and I hope my memory is correct!), Bush has said that these would not be used against resident aliens.

Now, he could have excepted only "resident aliens who also have long established ties in America" and been within Supreme Court rulings.

[Polybius]

You're missing a major point. The purpose of the so-called trials is to determine whether the accused is a combatant (or one who aids combatants). If we're determining in advance that Joe Resident Alien is indeed a combatant, then why bother with a trial at all? What would be the point in having a trial for someone whom we've already declared guilty?

Determining if the accused is a combatant is part of the trial just as determining if a civilian Court has jurisdiction is part of a civil trial

In a civil trial, if the Court determines that it has no jurisdiction, the charges are dropped or the case is referred to the legal sovereign that does have jurisdiction.

Likewise, in a Military Tribunal, if the accused is determined not to be a combatant, then the charges are dropped or the case is referred to the civil Courts.

[lepton]

How in the world did you arrive at those conclusions? There is nothing in the US Constutition that prevents people being arrested who are comitting crimes.

It is not the being arrested that would be blocked, but the declaring of it as a crime. Clearly we distinguish between the rights of immigrants and the rights of those who are naturalized, and to some degree citizens as well.

[BillofRights]

...but the laws of the nation apply to everyone who is here, whether that person is a citizen or not...

Though the LAWS apply to everyone who is here, that does NOT answer the question of whether everyone in the world possesses the RIGHTS of U.S. citizens, particularly since many of the conspirators and perpetrators of terrorism were not on our soil when their acts of terrorism/war were committed -- and some may have never set foot on U.S. soil.

Nonetheless, I believe a case can be made for either side of this issue. For example, the Declaration of Independence states that, "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." This certainly suggests that the same Rights apply to everyone in the world. However, the Constitution begins with the following words: "We The People of the United States..." The very next sentence says, "...That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..." This verbiage suggests that only the "people" who participate in the governance of the U.S. fall under the purview of the Constitution.

Certainly the foreign terrorists have not participated in our government -- they have not paid taxes, nor have they voted in the U.S. Moreover, Article IV, Section 2. of the Constitution states, "...The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states..." This does not confer privileges to non-citizens. It appears that the weight of the argument militates against non-citizens of the U.S. enjoying the same rights and privileges as do the citizens. For example, would a known terrorist and non-citizen, with an expired Visa, but on American soil, have the same protected 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms, that a U.S. citizen enjoys, just because he is on our soil? I think probably not. Accordingly, it appears that non-citizens of the U.S. do NOT enjoy each and every right and privilege that U.S. citizens do.

[A.J.Armitage]

THE SUBJECT IS: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT THE US/STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ACTING ON ADVERSELY BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

Dad: Now son, don't hit people.

Young H.A: Okay daddy.

Later that day...

Dad: Didn't I tell you not to hit people?

Y H.A: You didn't say not to hit Timmy!

Dad: Of course I did. I told you not to hit people. What part of that didn't you understand?

Y H.A: But you didn't say who was covered by that.

Dad: You're covered by it! Don't try getting smart with me son!

[Polybius]

Another point, noted by Jefferson, was that we had been declared upon and attacked first.

Big deal! What the h#ll did Thomas Jefferson know about the U.S. Constitution!! ;-)

[lepton]

For another, we could declare war on Iraq, where we have been fighting an un-Constitutional, un-declared war for about 8 years.

Also approved by Congress...even if Gore DID decide to approve it based on how much air-time he'd get.