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."
To see that this is the only thing that makes sense, consider this possibility. Congress is given, under the Constitution, full power to make "a uniform rule of Naturalization". In other words, Congress decides who is, and who is not, a U.S.citizen. If the Bill of Rights applied only to U.S. citizens, then Congress could effectively emasculate the Bill of Rights by restricting citizenship (say to those whose ancestors had been in the U.S. for generations).
Here is a link to it:
Here is a quote from it:
"We note that proposed arrangements are to be used only on non-U.S.citizens. That citizens have superior privileges (and duties) neither surprises, nor offends." [emphasis added]
Gee, it surprises, and quite offends some of the people here in this bastion of rationality.
and another quote:
"What really gums things up is hysterical formulations. "My job is to defend the Constitution from its enemies," Mr. Bill Goodman of New York's Center for Constitutional Rights advises us, "(whose) main enemies right now are the Justice Department and the White House." That finding is not only wrong, it is dumb.
We hear from Alan Dershowitz and from Bill Press that what we are fighting for are such things as standards of guilt and innocence enshrined in current practice of law, which is foolish. What we are fighting for is to frustrate al-Qaida's designs on American lives. "--W.F. Buckley Jr.
Oh but Mr. Buckley, let me introduce you to Bob Barr, and some of the earnest people on this site who think that the right to a speedy trial or to not be searched and wiretapped without probable cause is an unalienable divinely endowed right for any Osama on US soil, citizen or no, legal or illegal.
Somehow, in the company of Mr. Buckley, I don't feel like too much of a moron.
He even makes the connection between privileges and duties -similar to the connection that yours truly makes at the beginning of this thread. Why, - It's almost like I had sent him an email message giving him some ideas :)
Like what - Governments are not allowed to kill persons?
Governments are not allowed to deport Chinese reporters for expressing joy at the WTC bombing??
Which one of the first ten amendments did Janet Reno violate when she scooped up little Alien Gonzalez in the dead of night?
Just what aren't governments allowed to do to those people who they did it to?
Governments are not allowed to do things to certain people. The entire point of this thread, is to inquire into who those certain people are. We know that Governments like the US and the UK are allowed to kill Talibanese. They're foreigners on their own land, of course. Where do we draw the line, and what is Barr's rationale for "US soil" regardless of citizenship, or legal status?
Does the limitations that are place on the State in the 14th Amendment apply to the federal governments
prosecution of a capital crime in the 5th Amendment?
I don't see any other limitations being placed on the governments prosecution of a capital crime
than those laid out in the 5th Amendment. I assume the 14th Amendment does not apply.
I was gonna say,"Of coursem,this happens thousands of times a year",but you got me with the "not in violation of civilian law" part. It doesn't really matter,though. The very fact that you can acutally go to jail for something that ISN'T a actual crime is proof enough you gave away your Constitutional rights. So does the fact you can legall by punished twice for the same crime. Commit a civilian crime while in the military,and go to a civilian jail or pay the fine levied by the civilian judge. When you are returned to military custody,you are then tried again for the same charge,plus charged with AWOL for the time the civilian court held you.
Wrong. We are talking about illegal aliens here,and they aren't "allowed here" by definition. Some aliens ARE allowed to come to the US to work on work visas,but they are here legally.
You're correct to assume that the 14th Amendment does not restrain the Federal Government. But remember who ratified the 14th Amendment - essentially the Federal Government, during a time of military occupation of half the nation. Even the Northern States didn't like it that much - two of them rescinded their ratification - Ohio and New Jersey, but they were counted anyway by the rats that Patrick Henry smelled some 80 years earlier.
Please avail yourself of the history of the Squalid 14th Amendment and help spread the word.
Without the 14th Amendment, liberals would have no social engineering capability. State Legislatures would have retained significant authority. "Equal Protection" can mean anything to any justice on the Supreme Court, and the 14th Amendment gives them the jurisdiction they need to meddle in the affairs of otherwise free people in the States.
Maybe you expected them to write,"We,the people of Germany,Great Britian,and France determine that the people of the United States....."? They were merely stating their new status and their "standing" to formulate these rules,not making restrictions.
Please avail yourself of the history of the Squalid 14th Amendment and help spread the word.
No. Don't be absurd.
So aliens do have some constitutional rights then? Then I think is incumbent upon you to explain to us precisely how the constitutional rights of aliens differ from those of citizens (apart from those places where the distinction is specifically spelled out in the Constitution; e.g., the right to vote or hold public office).
For example, are aliens protected against cruel and unusual punishment? Or are punishments less cruel and unusual when applied to aliens? For example, can a law be passed mandating that an alien convicted of shoplifting can be sentenced to have his fingernails pulled out without anesthesia (which would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment if committed upon a citizen)?
No - the Constitution protects us - "us" meaning people of the United States - from tyranny from our government. Incidentally, most of that protection comes from the structure of our government - the separation of Ex. Leg. and Jud. powers and the separation of state and federal powers. That protection does not come as much from the Bill of rights as many people think. Scalia gave a speech on this very issue. The Constitution of Russia sounds great, when you read the list of rights.
"Or is it that it's ok to infringe upon the rights of innocent people, as long as they're not citizens?"
I'm not saying it's ok to infringe upon the rights of innocent people. I'm saying not all people on US soil have full protection of the BoR. e.g. the Chinese reporters who cheered and were deported. Innocent people who are not citizens may form their own government and have their own bill of rights to restrain it.
"I'm pretty sure I don't agree with either premise."
But they aren't my premises.
Mr. Barr made no exceptions. All I have to do is show one. There is one. Where there is one, there are likely more, and he is wrong.
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.