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."

[BillofRights]

Good point! Seems that way, doesn't it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Governments (and people) can only take rights away, they can't grant them.

They can either honor them, or violate them.

They can either protect them of supress them.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Yes. Sadly it does seem that way.

[general_re]

Okay, so it's just a separate court system then, with a certain limited jurisdiction. What, exactly, are the advantages of the tribunals on domestic soil versus criminal courts?

[Texasforever]

What, exactly, are the advantages of the tribunals on domestic soil versus criminal courts?

First of all I don't think any tribunal will ever be convened within the continental US. Second, it allows sensitive intelligence used as evidence to remain secret. The WTC bombing trials and the public disclosure of sources and sensitive intelligence gathering techniques was a disaster. For one it stopped Bin Laden from using his satellite phones when it was brought out that his calls were being monitored. When I say secret I don't mean secret from the accused or his lawyer just from the NYT and Washington Post. It does not hold the potential of jurors being threatened or the families being put in danger and yes it does not require the same level of "proof" to gain a conviction. I am also bothered that a conviction cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court directly. I am not so sure that that will not be challenged and the process amended.

[general_re]

First of all I don't think any tribunal will ever be convened within the continental US.

Keep in mind that that's my only objection here. I don't think it's appropriate for here, or for people who are here. I think that the problem is exactly that the burden of proof is less, and that the right of appeal is eliminated. SCOTUS has, as we've - repeatedly ;) - seen on this thread, created a standard whereby resident aliens are entitled to many of the protections of the constitution, particularly the due-process parts. And I don't think that these tribunals do that - the 4'th, 5'th, and 14'th amendments are all specifically noted to apply to resident aliens, but will these tribunals follow that standard?

Now, as for those abroad taken in arms against the US - hang them from the nearest tree, as far as I'm concerned. I'm concerned about the protections that the Court has made available to resident aliens only. As I said, they've made these protections afforded to non-citizens, and I happen to like it and agree with it.

[H.Akston]

First of all, that post was for AJ, not you. You're just blowing smoke.

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

Please don't paraphrase me in quotes. Just quote me or don't use quotes at all.

In post 427 you brought up the question about "non-citizens".

In the post you just quoted, I even said that foreigners on their own (Chinese) land were "beside the issue". You don't care about the whole truth.

First track: Have you seen any Chinese reporters around who cheered the WTC bombing? Were they protected by the First Amendment? If Bush's administration kicked them out of the country legally, doesn't that mean that Congress somewhere has made a law that infringed on their freedom of expression? (among other rights in the BoR?) Did Bush act illegally in kicking them out?

If we've been spying on a Chinese citizen in China, and he comes to this country, do we have to get a warrant to continue to tap his phone? I certainly hope not.

Why do you and Barr want to find non-existent words in the Constitution about "US Soil", and extend the protection of the Bill of Rights to those we've identified as being enemies of the US who aren't even citizens?

If we've targeted Osama for assassination, and he gets on "US soil" somehow, we (the military, or the US Marshals) can't then just shoot him? I sure hope you're not in the military, providing for the common defense.

[H.Akston]

Thanks Tex. "Here is the state of emergency:

Declaration of National Emergency by Reason Of Certain Terrorist Attacks
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201(c), 12006, and 12302 of title 10, United States Code, and sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code.
....

GEORGE W. BUSH"

I'm not a lawyer, but something tells me that somewhere in "...the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), " and "the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201(c), 12006, and 12302 of title 10, United States Code, and sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code",
is a law that Congress made that infringes on one or more of the rights in the Bill of Rights for some sorry "person" who happens to be on US Soil, but who has never paid the first dollar in taxes to the US, and who has a map of all nuclear power facilities in the US in his camel sack. And thank goodness for that alienability of those rights.

[republius]

I held your view for years. The Findlaw link posted on another thread and the discussions here, plus some more reading, convinced me I was wrong.

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.

Here is something to think about while you do some further reading: Jefferson very much believed the 'original intent' and the 'plain meaning' of the constitution should be followed. But note - he was not present when that document was hammered out, he was in France. Hamilton WAS part of the process. Because of this fact (his not being present) Jefferson sometimes took a cautious path and deferred to Congress or others who were present until he felt the limits and intents were clarified. This was one of those cases.

I believe him to be better than "at least,"
I think he's a better judge of what it says.

Jefferson himself would probably disagree with you on this, so far as original intent goes. I, too, tend to like Jefferson better than Hamilton, epecially Hamilton's later views. Earlier Hamilton (Hamilton at the time of writing The Federalist) is more 'Jeffersonian' though.

After finding out that President Hamilton never existed, I believe that I might need to study some more.

I just love this place, though I do a lot more learning than actively participating.

[sneakypete]

A Moral right to Exist ranks higher than a legal prohibition on the right to exist.

Oh,HorseHillary! Nobody is saying a illegal alien doens't have a right to work,he just doesn't have a right to work in THIS COUNTRY. He/she can go back to their own countries to work. Nobody is stopping them.

[sneakypete]

Take this up with the lawyers,not me. Or are you trying to deny the reality of what I wrote?

[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.

OK, I can see your thick so I'll try again. Where does the constitution REQUIRE Congress to declare war????

[jwalsh07]

You would do well to read them. The above quote is one of many like it. It is obvious that the Founding Fathers couldn't even fathom the idea of going to war against an enemy who attacked America without Congress making a formal war declaration.

You are so far off the mark you should be thrown off the range. Out of 247 conflicts in this nations history, 5 wars have been declared. Care to name them?

By the way, the Civil War wasn't one of them so you better start the Civil Conflict lobbying effort.

[jwalsh07]

PS: Required is nowhere to be found in your post. How come?

[KirkandBurke]

Just a sidebar to your post: I think that the Hamilton/Jefferson disagreement on government closely mirrors the difference between two major conservative factions; the centralizers vs. the de-centralizers.

[lepton]

Take this up with the lawyers,not me. Or are you trying to deny the reality of what I wrote?

I'm trying to point out that the definition of the word inalienable means that you can't give it up.

What happens with the military is something that does however look very much like that...except that a civilian court doesn't gain any more authority. You have to be tried in a military court or its auspices if you've committed an offense covered by military discipline and not in violation of civilian law. Unless you can think of an example where this is not so?

[Gumlegs]

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[.]

This strikes me as a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" sort of question.

We regard these rights as "unalienable" and God-given. We don't attempt to enforce them in other nations, nor should we. After all, we don't want other nations attempting to enforce their laws in our country.

As to whether we'll be granting them to people we round up as a result of the current war, I'd say, "No." Enemy combatants are a special case, prisoners of war are a special case, people living in occupied countries are a special case, and people governing those in occupied countries are a special case.

[lepton]

Oh,HorseHillary! Nobody is saying a illegal alien doens't have a right to work,he just doesn't have a right to work in THIS COUNTRY. He/she can go back to their own countries to work. Nobody is stopping them.

Another way of putting that is that he is only granted conditional entry. He's allowed here for specific purposes, and working is not one of them.

[backup]

If we've been spying on a Chinese citizen in China, and he comes to this country, do we have to get a warrant to continue to tap his phone? I certainly hope not.

Yes. A Warrant is necessary.

Why do you and Barr want to find non-existent words in the Constitution about "US Soil", and extend the protection of the Bill of Rights to those we've identified as being enemies of the US who aren't even citizens?

Nobody is extending anything.

The Government does not have the authority to do certain things. Period.

If we've targeted Osama for assassination, and he gets on "US soil" somehow, we (the military, or the US Marshals) can't then just shoot him?

Of course they can't "just shoot him."

(Indeed, even overseas it is questionable as to whether one can legally be targeted for assasination.)

[Publius6961]

You are a moron and Bob Barr is absolutely correct.

Great intellectual response.
Simple, is it?