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."
If I were anal enough to worry about spelling,I could use a dictionary. On the other hand,where can you turn to learn how to think?
I'll bet your mom used to tell you that,didn't she? Along with telling you how smart and attractive you are. You DO know all this is going into your "permanent record",don't you?
Glad to have you aboard, along with:
Betty Boop
William Buckley
Rush Limbaugh
Thomas Sowell
Steve Chapman
George Bush
& John Ashcroft
!
Rush put the last nail in the coffin today of the backup, leahy, kennedy gonzales crowd. They're "taking up the cause of terrorist's rights". Typical for liberals, but he said 'there are "PSEUDO CONSERVATIVES" out there who want to be "seen as civil libertarians". There are ACLU types among us. Why in the world they want to be seen that way is beyond Rush and myself.
It's almost like Rush has been lurking on this thread! Bless him.
"...those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212."
Thus, you are correct in your assertion that not all non-citizens within the United States enjoy the same degree of Constitutional protection as do citizens.
The foaming-at-the-mouth TaLibertarians and Rep. Barr are interpreting the Constitution outside of context of common law and case law, and as such are besmirching the Constitution by ignoring the authority of the Supreme Court (not to mention providing aid and comfort to the illegal belligerents who could be legally subjected to trial by military tribunal).
The Talibertarians will go down in history as the ones who postured while NY burned.
Please check out http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/583913/posts where this discussion has been continuing.
Barr is wrong dittos.
CATO
I sure am glad the Bill of Rights is not a granting and enumeration of unalienable rights to anyone whose only claim on them is that he happens to be on our soil.
I sure am glad the Bill of Rights is not a list of divinely granted rights.
It's payback time for those who were never "of the United States". If that makes some people queasy, then they should think of it like this: The tyrannization of Osama and his network is now defined as due process, in accordance with the president's authorized emergency powers, for Osama's daring to interfere with the unalienable rights of Americans. Neither him nor his people are necessarily going to get an impartial jury, as he is entitled under the VIth Amendment, for example.
I must strongly disagree.
THE BOR is a "partial list of DIVINELY GRANTED RIGHTS granted by our Lord" that predated man and our nation.
No piece of paper written by man "grants" anything. Our BOR just lists what is already ours.
And sad to say, God granted, IMO, those same rights to Binny,
although he has abused his rights and Binny will have to pay for this abuse.
OBTW, Binny has escaped through Pakistan and we won't catch him anytime soon.The NWO has a need for him.
Take care,
CATO
THE BOR is a "partial list of DIVINELY GRANTED RIGHTS granted by our Lord" that predated man and our nation.
Where did you quote that from pray tell?
I'm not so sure that God granted me the right to bear arms, or to not have troops quartered in my house without my consent. Most of those rights in the BoR come from our [secular] belief as a people in popular and individual sovereignty over the Government, not from God. The rights of life, liberty and property come from God, as he told us not to kill, tyrannize or steal, respectively. But I have a hard time believing that God granted me a right to a speedy trial. I don't think the government granted us those rights, either, but the original people of the United States did, since we are their posterity.
No piece of paper written by man "grants" anything. Our BOR just lists what is already ours.
The Bill of Rights was made possible by the force of arms our Revolutionary War ancestors used against the British. The rights might be there all along, but without superior force on the side of right, they will be taken away. You could say that the prevention of a taking is not a granting, but we'd be getting kind of semantical.
And sad to say, God granted, IMO, those same rights to Binny, although he has abused his rights and Binny will have to pay for this abuse.
Sure, even Binny has unalienable rights. That's probably why we don't do assassinations - we've recognized that we shouldn't murder. But we do have a right to self defense, as you surely agree.
OBTW, Binny has escaped through Pakistan and we won't catch him anytime soon.The NWO has a need for him.
Take care,
CATO
The new order for the ages was established in 1789 when the realization that liberty and constitutional government was superior to all other forms, came upon the people of the United States. I sort of like the old new order. Let's deconstruct Reconstruction, which was a damaging assault on constitutional government, and get it back.
My own. We don't all haved to plagarize quotes you know. LOL!
I'm not so sure that God granted me the right to bear arms,..
Read Romans where Jesus said IF you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Seems to me that is a mandate from God to be armed and therefore a God-Given and "Constitutionally recognized" God-given RIGHT that predated the Constitution.
Take care,
CATO
You are wrong, because:
1) You cite the Preamble to the Constitution ("We the People")...but the Preamble has no legal effect. The Preamble is merely an introduction. It is the Constitution itself (together with related amendments) that has legal meaning.
2) You neglect the actual wording in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution). The 5th Amendment very clearly indicates that it applies to all "persons"...not merely U.S. citizens. Likewise, the 6th Amendment applies to "the accused" in any criminal prosecution...not merely U.S. citizens.
That's why you are wrong. Bob Barr could tell you that. Alan Keyes could also tell you that. Harry Browne (the one presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000 who actually would have followed the Constitution!) could sure as h@ll tell you that. But John Ashcroft and G.W. Bush either, 1) haven't read, 2) haven't understood, or 3) simply don't give a damn about, the Constitution of these United States.
Having told you why you're wrong, I'll also suggest that, before you publicly write that Bob Barr doesn't know what he's talking about, you should actually bother to carefully read the Bill of Rights.
Mark (Libertarian)
Why, pray tell, was the preamble written? And is it just empty rhetoric to be ignored? Have a little more respect for the Constitution. You know it says "to ourselves and our posterity", not the posterity of Afghans or Chinamen. It may not have any specific legal effect but then it sets the whole tone and purpose, which has a very definite effect. Besides, if something with legal effect is necessary, then what is the legal basis that Barr is using? The Constitution says nothing specific about anybody from Timbuktu just being on US Soil granting them some kind of magical protection. What in the Constitution is he using for his argument?
2) You neglect the actual wording in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
Thank you so much for letting me know.
The 5th Amendment very clearly indicates that it applies to all "persons"...not merely U.S. citizens. Likewise, the 6th Amendment applies to "the accused" in any criminal prosecution...not merely U.S. citizens.
If it applies to all "persons", why doesn't it apply to "persons" who are citizens of Columbia, in Columbia? Why doesn't our judical system make sure Columbians get speedy trials, when their government tries to deny them speedy trials? Clearly, you've got to read more than just the Bill of Rights to figure out just WHO these rights are protecting. It's not that I'm neglecting those words, it's that I'm not considering them as if they were in a vacuum, since that is not possible to do.
Oh come on. It "seems to me" that Jesus didn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Caesar. Must you insist that I go down the list?
What about the quartering of troops that I mentioned? God given right?
Is it a God given right that I have right to counsel?
A God given right that I'm not unreasonably searched??
Does the Bible grant me the right to have a Grand Jury for a capital or otherwise infamous crime?
Is a "trial by Jury" there in the Bible?
You seem to be confusing unalienable rights with the rights of man agreed by man.
No, it's not "empty rhetoric to be ignored." It sets out the purpose of the Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing specific about anybody from Timbuktu just being on US Soil granting them some kind of magical protection. What in the Constitution is he using for his argument?
As I wrote before, the part the Constitution that has those protections is the 5th Amendment that applies to "persons" and the 6th Amendment that applies to "the accused." THAT'S the part of the Constitution he's using for his argument.
A more important question is, "What part of the Constitution are Bush and Ashcroft using to say that non-citizens can be tried in military courts?" The answer, as far as I know, is, "No part of the Constitution. What they propose violates the 5th and 6th amendments."
"If it applies to all "persons", why doesn't it apply to "persons" who are citizens of Columbia, in Columbia?"
Because the Constitution of the United States only applies in the United States. Not Columbia. They have their own laws.
Clearly, you've got to read more than just the Bill of Rights to figure out just WHO these rights are protecting. It's not that I'm neglecting those words, it's that I'm not considering them as if they were in a vacuum, since that is not possible to do.
Yes...so what part of the Constitution do you think over-rides or changes the language in the 5th and 6th Amendments? Bob Barr (apparently) doesn't see any language that over-rides or changes those protections. I can't see any language that does, either. On U.S. soil, "persons" are protected by the 5th Amendment, and "the accused" in a criminal trial is protected by the 6th amendment. Those protections are NOT just limited to citizens.
Thank goodness that some conservatives like Bob Barr (and Alan Keyes) can see that, and are willing to speak up.
If the preamble is not good enough for you or Barr, I guess Bob Barr doesn't understand that the US can ship non-citizens back to their own country in a heartbeat, thus denying them not only certain rights under the bill of rights, but ALL of them, any time we damn well please.
Must you disagree with William F. Buckley so stubbornly? Citizens have superior privileges over non-citizens. One of those privileges non-citizens don't have is to be protected by the bill of rights.
SEC. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. – Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution
A non-citizen is not necessarily under US jurisdiction, even if he's on US Soil. The Indians were perfect examples of this, before that law was passed that made them citizens. That was done so that they could be protected by the Bill of Rights while off the reservation on US soil.
Non-citizens can be shipped out. Their protection under the Bill of rights is quite alienable, and optional.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
It's just like you to hang your hat on something so fraudulently ratified. It's in conflict with Article V. It makes the Constitution a document divided. And a document divided, can not stand reason.
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.