Who does the Bill of Rights cover?

This Week | 2 Dec 01 | Bob Barr

[exodus]

Tell you what.
Forget the Declaration of War for a moment.
How about the President declaring a State of Emergency?
That would give him war powers too.

Remember, we were afraid Clinton would invent some "emergency" and claim Emergency Powers? Let our Republican President claim his legitimate power. Without either a Congressional "Declaration of War" or a Presidential "State of Emergency," the new rules are a permanent part of our law. Either of the above would allow for temporary measures, rather than new laws setting permenent precedents restricting our freedom.
# 444 by exodus
*******************

To: exodus
Bush did declare a national emergency...I think.
I will do a bit more research before I state it as fact.
Did you read the link I gave you on Hamilton?
It is very interesting.
# 446 by Texasforever
************

I don't believe the President declared a State of Emergency,
I've been waiting and hoping that he would,
barring the ideal solution of declaring war.
I don't think it would have slipped by me.

I just read the Hamilton link.
I still think he's wrong, but he does reason well.
Thomas Jefferson is at least as good an authority
as Hamilton on the Constitution.
I believe him to be better than "at least,"
I think he's a better judge of what it says.

I'll read some more of the links on the page later.
After finding out that President Hamilton never existed,
I believe that I might need to study some more.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Try this, is long but we worth it.

81050-War Powers Resolution:Presidential Compliance

[Texasforever]

I don't believe the President declared a State of Emergency,

I posted the state of emergency a few posts up.

[PoorMuttly]

It's pretty obvious that WHAT it covers is Bill-Hilly Clinton's birdcage bottom.

[Iwo Jima]

It has been brought to my attention that you might be "Mr. Smith" as opposed to "Mrs. Smith." If that is so, then please excuse every "sexist-sounding" remark which I might have made to you. Also, please allow me to redouble every commisseration which I might have expressed about having to have gone shopping.

[general_re]

It all depends on how you , the government or I define those that fall under the EO.

You're absolutely right, and I agree with you. The thing that strikes me, though, with trying to narrowly define those subject to the order is that if the order only applies to those who somehow assisted or aided or knew about the attacks, then you're stuck with a bit of a logical problem.

To wit - only those who assisted in or had prior knowledge of the attacks can be tried before a military tribunal. But proving that they assisted and aided in or knew about the attacks is what the tribunal is supposed to be for in the first place. By the very act of putting them in front of the tribunal, you have essentially assumed the truth of the very thing you are supposed to be proving - that they assisted or aided in the attacks. That's begging the question, and that's (in part) why I object to the use of tribunals for resident aliens alone.

[Texasforever]

To wit - only those who assisted in or had prior knowledge of the attacks can be tried before a military tribunal. But proving that they assisted and aided in or knew about the attacks is what the tribunal is supposed to be for in the first place. By the very act of putting them in front of the tribunal, you have essentially assumed the truth of the very thing you are supposed to be proving - that they assisted or aided in the attacks. That's begging the question, and that's (in part) why I object to the use of tribunals for resident aliens alone.

No more illogical than a civilian court. the state charges, indicts, and prosecutes those accused of committing a common crime. If the charges are covered under the EO then Bush has the option of trying them in that venue. The government still has to prove the charges before conviction but that is what the trial is for, to prove or acquit. The only power Bush has taken is the choice of venue for those suspected of terrorist activities.

[Iwo Jima]

You are exactly right -- it is question-begging of the first degree. Where can these accused persons go to say "but I am not a terrorist, and so I should not be tried in these special 'terrorists' courts."

[FreeReign]

Who does the Bill of Rights cover?

We the people of the United States -- good laundry list -- to ourselves and our posterity. The BOR was created by and for the citizens of this country.

Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

[general_re]

Where can these accused persons go to say "but I am not a terrorist, and so I should not be tried in these special 'terrorists' courts."

Precisely. Or, even worse - what happens if someone goes before a tribunal and is acquitted?

IOW, what happens they are found not guilty of having aided the attacks on the US? After all, if they didn't aid in the attacks on the US, then by the very definition of the tribunals they shouldn't have been brought before them in the first place.

[Texasforever]

The Joint resolution cites two clauses in the WPA that control this action. The reporting requirement is in 5(b) and as per below.

b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

With the statutory authority given by the joint resolution, the action takes on the same context that a declaration of war would hold. IOW the 60 day reports are not required.

[Texasforever]

Where can these accused persons go to say "but I am not a terrorist, and so I should not be tried in these special 'terrorists' courts."

Where does an accused killer go to say I am not a killer?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Exactly!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain.

The "Exactly" was in reference to the fact that the use of military is completely constitutional.

[general_re]

Where does an accused killer go to say I am not a killer?

To a criminal court, to establish one's guilt or innocence. But you only go before a tribunal if you aided or assisted in the attacks on 9/11 - not so with regular criminal courts, which are established in order to determine the factual basis of the allegations made against you. The only way to be put in front of a tribunal is by being, in fact, guilty - a priori.

[nopardons]

Sheeeeeeeeeesh ! In a forgein coutry, you have the " RIGHTS" granted you b THAT country; which is NOT the same thing, at all, as having the " RIGHTS " granted you, as an American citizen ( if your even are one ) , in America. Try telling gaurds in an jail, in Peru, Indonesian, or Afghanistan , that you have " RIGHTS " granted to you by the Constitution, of the USA, and the BoR ! Boy, are YOU in for a shock ! LOL

So, you have " RIGHTS " ( ? ) about a car, even if that car is stolen ? REALLY ? What " RIGHTS " are those ? Paying for/ collecting the insurance ? Your analogy doesn't work.

[Texasforever]

Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain.

I don't think that is a particularly onerous requirement but the Congress pretty much boxed itself in as far as cutting off funding by the very wording of the joint resolution as "statutory authorization". Once that was done, the president was granted all war powers of the CIC including the decision as to when the threat has ended and hostilities are over. This makes it a little murky because we are not fighting a nation who once they surrender means the war is over.

[Texasforever]

But you only go before a tribunal if you aided or assisted in the attacks on 9/11 - not so with regular criminal courts, which are established in order to determine the factual basis of the allegations made against you. The only way to be put in front of a tribunal is by being, in fact, guilty - a priori.

No, you only go before the tribunal if you have been accused and charged with crimes that are covered under their jurisdiction. From that point on the trial process answers the guilt or innocence I don't understand why that is so difficult to grasp.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Who does the Bill of Rights cover?

Everyone in the world BUT those who pay taxes to this country and/or those who care about what is happening to this country.