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 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 701-714 next last
To: Texasforever
"And once again AJ in his pitiful rush to attack gets it wrong. Akston said exactly that you just didn't take the time to read it."

"His pitiful rush to attack" - now I know what AJ stands for: Atta's Jihad

I'll never mess with Texas :)

421 posted on 12/02/2001 6:32:41 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
So are you agreeing that the Constitution does not cover ALL people within our borders, but only "certain" people... namely citizens? Since they DID toss those Chinese, I gotta believe that the government did acquire the power to do so.
422 posted on 12/02/2001 6:34:44 PM PST by Wissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: lepton
*******************

The Northern Alliance has some Autonomous groups, but among them is the "Official Government of Afghanistan". Only three nations had ever recognized the Taliban militia groups as the Government of Afghanistan. Not even Iran has ever recognized them. Pakistan had recognized them because they created the Taliban. BTW, the Taliban is also in Pakistan, where it exists only as a religious movement.
# 411 by lepton

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

That doesn't fly, lepton.
Lots of Arab nations refused to recognize the Jews
as the legitimate government of Israel.

History is full of wars waged to replace the government
of an enemy with the "legitimate" government of your allies.

The Talaban were in control of the Capitol and the nation.
A Declaration of War against the government in power is what war is about.

423 posted on 12/02/2001 6:34:52 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: 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.

You confuse unalienable rights with constitutional rights -- they are different.

424 posted on 12/02/2001 6:36:32 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: exodus
The action abainst the Barbary Pirates started under President Thomas Jefferson.

It started under Washington, albeit there were phases of lesser action, with another phase coming into effect during Jefferson's term.

He said that he had done all he could without a Declaration of War from Congress. His successor, Alexander Hamilton, disagreed. Hamilton said that the Pirates had already declared war on the United States, so he wasn't required to wait for a Declaration of War.

His Successor? Hamilton Was President?

Their disagreement was on how broad that authority was. BOTH agreed that the President could carry out war if the nation was attacked, without a Congressional Declaration of War. Congress specifically allocated funds for that action, and for the one we are currently engaged in.

425 posted on 12/02/2001 6:36:40 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: lepton
"Who were the Presidents and Vice Presidents from 1795-1815? They ALL did. "

Hooray! ( I was beginning to think no one counted the first undeclared war: the Quasi-war with France.)

Heck, the US Marines were reconstituted to fight it and it had two amphibious landings. But all anybody talks about is the "Barbery Pirates".

426 posted on 12/02/2001 6:38:33 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Not Everyone on US Soil is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Does Congress have the power to establish an official religion for non-citizens?

Where does it get that authority?

427 posted on 12/02/2001 6:39:01 PM PST by backup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: exodus
That doesn't fly, lepton. Lots of Arab nations refused to recognize the Jews as the legitimate government of Israel.

The point is which government the US recognizes.... and that IS, and consistently HAS been, the Northern Alliance. We aren't gonna declare war against them.

428 posted on 12/02/2001 6:39:44 PM PST by Wissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise by certain people thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of certain people, or of the press; or the right of the certain people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Atta's Jihad, does the first amendment really prevent our government from stopping free speech in other nations? No. Congress can pass a law to disrupt Chinese communications without infringing on their First Amendment rights, because even though they're people, they have no rights protected by our first amendment from our government. This is beside the issue though. You're so out to lunch. Have you seen any Chinese reporters near where you are?

429 posted on 12/02/2001 6:40:11 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Here is a bit more on the history of declaring war: I don't know if it will help since the issue is a straw man set up to oppse this administration.

Declaration of War

In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ''to make war.''1412 Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone,1413 in the Senate alone,1414 or in the President and the Senate,1415 the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.1416 In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual;1417 in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.1418

The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to ''declare war.''1419 Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks1420 without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President.1421

430 posted on 12/02/2001 6:40:22 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; schmelvin; JD86
*******************

To: exodus
Exodus, Hamilton was never president.
# 417 by Texasforever

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

Boy, am I shocked.

Do you still have that link you posted that said Jefferson refused to act without a Declaration of War, but Hamilton said that he didn't need one, and fought the Pirates without a Declaration of War from Congress?

Reading that, I assumed that Hamilton was President after Jefferson. Eveything else I know about the Barbary Pirates other than your link is from my Junior High reading.

431 posted on 12/02/2001 6:44:47 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: backup
I wonder if we wiretap and spy on other nations, depriving those citizens of their 4th Amendment rights?

Wasn't there an incident back in April with an EP-3 over in China? We weren't eavesdropping without a warrant were we!!? Even Bob Barr knows that was ok, since those Airmen weren't even on "US soil."

There's no font size adequately large enough for the "Duh" you deserve.

432 posted on 12/02/2001 6:45:18 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
You're right about the Barbary pirates. I stand corrected. I found this interesting link about our history of declaring war. Someone else posted that one reason Bush didn't declare war is because families would be financially decimated by their insurance not covering acts of war. This site mentions that. I'm sorry I don't know how to post a link.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:EEAyutBhVf4:www.atr.org/policybriefs/081301.war.powers.pdf+barbary+pirates&hl=en

433 posted on 12/02/2001 6:45:24 PM PST by schmelvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: exodus
That doesn't fly, lepton. Lots of Arab nations refused to recognize the Jews as the legitimate government of Israel.

"The Jews" are not the official government of Israel. Only the Government of Israel. As to the Arab nations recognition, that might affect their declaration if they had a similar Constitution, but as they do not, it is a non-sequitor. We aren't talking about Pakistan warring with Afghanistan under our laws and Constitution - we're talking about the U.S. doing so against the Taliban.

FYI, the Taliban took Kabul, but the seat of government moved. Also, and not particularly relevant, they never controlled more than half the country. 50% controlled by Taliban, 35% in constant dispute, and 15% by the NA. No international body that I am aware of, and certainly not the U.N. had recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan either, so we were in a rather large company.

434 posted on 12/02/2001 6:46:32 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"Congress met seldom in those days and it took a long time to travel."

I think that you have just made a very significant point. One can readily accept the fact that in colonial times the ability of Congress to meet was limited and so the President naturally must have the power to act upon the exigencies of the moment to protect the country. But how in heaven's name can anyone accept Congress actually meeting and passing "resolutions" as a substitute for a delaration of war? I simply cannot accept this mode of operation in today's environment of "instant messaging."
435 posted on 12/02/2001 6:49:37 PM PST by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: go star go
i suppose now you'll tell us you have no problem with Osama's boys exercising their 'rights' under the second amendment. They can walk into a gun shop, go through the background check, and walk out with a gun and head straight to the airplane with your husband and kids on it.
If is here legally, they have the right to be well regulated...that is, own firearms. Your stipulated "background check" is a violation of the second amendment. Fortunately, if our Republic were truly Free as intended by the Framers, the rest of the passangers, some at least, would be likewise regulated. Who are you? HCI? Brady Bunch?
436 posted on 12/02/2001 6:51:00 PM PST by havoc1us
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Thus the law is superior to what you and I might say is moral as individuals.

Quite incorrect.

437 posted on 12/02/2001 6:52:14 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Congress can pass a law to disrupt Chinese communications without infringing on their First Amendment rights, because even though they're people, they have no rights protected by our first amendment from our government. This is beside the issue though. You're so out to lunch.

You are so full of it.

You begin the thread asking if the Bill of Rights “covers non-citizens.”

You go on to specifically state you are talking about non-citizens within the US’s jurisdiction. (see Posts 18, 25, 30, 62, 72, 109, etc.)

After having been ridiculed for several hundred posts by those who know better, you are now trying to backtrack and make it appear as if you were only talking about non-citizens in foreign countries.

What a dolt.

Give it up.

438 posted on 12/02/2001 6:52:16 PM PST by backup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Even better read hamiltons own words Here
439 posted on 12/02/2001 6:52:52 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
I wonder if we wiretap and spy on other nations, depriving those citizens of their 4th Amendment rights?

There you go again... See post 438.

440 posted on 12/02/2001 6:54:00 PM PST by backup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 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