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."
Bob Barr understands that. *I* understand that. If we want to, we can ship them back to their countries at any time. But IF we try them in THIS country, they are protected by the 5th amendment if they are "persons" (which they are) and are protected by the 6th amendment if they are "the accused"...which they are.
"Must you disagree with William F. Buckley so stubbornly?"
Yeah, when he's wrong. Why? You think he's some sort of god, and can't make mistakes?
"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."
The language of the 5th and 6th amendment seem clear. The 5th amendment applies to "persons" the 6th amendment applies to "the accused" in criminal trials. If you are trying to persuade me that the clear language of the 5th and 6th amendments don't mean what they seem to mean, you'd best go back to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, and show how their writings indicate that their language doesn't mean what it seems to mean.
Mark (Libertarian)
Persons in U.S. jurisdiction are protected by the bill of rights. - 618 - tpaine -
Your bumbling 'non-answer' at #619 was, in effect, - an admission that you were wrong. - Thanks once again.
The 14th IS ratified, your 'fraud rants' notwithstanding. Learn to live with it.
There is no conflict now. -- The 14th was ratified to end such conflict.
You're just a loonie who won't stop fighting the civil war.
You're a riot. It's ratified fraudulently. It is you, my loony fellow traveller, who can't learn to live with the simple truths that I point out. They're embarrassing to you, because you've wrapped your ego and sense of security around the propaganda that has been spoon fed to you for so long. Someone who doesn't swallow along with you, makes you uncomfortable.
There is no conflict now. -- The 14th was ratified to end such conflict.
BS. The 14th was "ratified" in 1868, the war ended in April 1865. The 14th was ratified to extend the power of centralized government over decentralized government.
You're just a loonie who won't stop fighting the civil war.
What a cheap, boneheaded, tiresome non-sequitur. yawn. The 14th Amendment was not a civil war issue. It came well after the war. It is an original construction vs. reconstruction issue. You oppose original construction, and support reconstruction. Who is the most American? Article V was violated by the 14th Amendment proponents, why is Article V less important than the 14th Amendment? You have selective appreciation for the Constitution. Quite liberal of you, you loon.
BS. The 14th was "ratified" in 1868, the war ended in April 1865. The 14th was ratified to extend the power of centralized government over decentralized government.
You refered to the 'conflict' beween amendments at #620, you boob.
---------------------
You're just a loonie who won't stop fighting the civil war.
What a cheap, boneheaded, tiresome non-sequitur. yawn. The 14th Amendment was not a civil war issue.
States 'rights' [powers] was one of the main issues. The states insisted they had the power to write law that violated the constitution. -- The civil war, & the 14th, settled that question, - suppposedly.
It came well after the war. It is an original construction vs. reconstruction issue. You oppose original construction, and support reconstruction. Who is the most American? Article V was violated by the 14th Amendment proponents, why is Article V less important than the 14th Amendment? You have selective appreciation for the Constitution.
The 14th only clarifies Art. V, as anyone can read. -- You are the 'loonie' on the subject, not me.
---- But thank you for your tacit admission of defeat.
You're lying again.
The conflict I referred to was between Article V and Amendment 14. You da boob. And a liar.
You're lying again.
The conflict I referred to was between Article V and Amendment 14. You da boob. And a liar.
Good grief but you are a petty little twit. What possible advantage do I gain by such a 'lie'?
Yes, the conflict you referred to was between Article V and Amendment 14.
My mistake in terms doesn't make me a boob. Or a liar.
Your overreaction, on the other hand, makes you look the fool.
In Hughs mind, -- 'Barr & the Constitution be damned, I cannot admit being wrong.'
My you're getting desperate.
Not everybody in the world is entitled to have the rights contained in the Bill of rights protected by our judicial system. It's a very liberal thing to say - "come here and get a free lawyer". That's part of what Barr is saying, and he's wrong.
You overreacted when you lied and said I was a boob, you boob. It is a false statement, to say that I am a boob!
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.
Parse that again. The latter "person(s)" is a reference to the former "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . .
Therefore, it applies to those who are born here and/or have become citizens. It doesn't get any more plain than that.
I said, refering to your #620:
There is no conflict now. -- The 14th was ratified to end such conflict.
BS. The 14th was "ratified" in 1868, the war ended in April 1865. The 14th was ratified to extend the power of centralized government over decentralized government.
You refered to the 'conflict' beween amendments [and Art.V.] at #620, you boob.
'Boob' still stands. You mistook my 'conflict' remark as refering somehow to the war. - It didn't. You are a boob,
- [a dimwit].
YES it is. Law and the counsel come from English tradition tempered with the phenominal Christian faith of the English and Scots. Check out Uriel 1975's brilliant articles on Calvinism/Presbyterianism and it's influence upon our founders and our nation's founding.
You seem to want to disregard that rights come from God and any deviation from this norm is an aboration of a men that have become full of themselves, thinking that they are fountainheads of civilization and wisdom. LOL!!!!!!!!!!
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.
Seems to me that Jesus said sell your cloak and buy a sword.
You better read history for ALL, that's ALL evil and statist regimes have instituted gun laws under various STATES OF EMERGENCIES and excuses all to better enslave and control the people.
Jesus says BS on that and He says arm ourselves. God mandated and GOD-GIVEN!
BTW, you may want to look at the Constitution and the remarks of the writers. Even they say the rights came before the Constitution and were the Birth Right of all men and that they came from God and not some King, Government, Bureacracy, etc..
A GOVERNMENT is one of many defenders of those Rights given by God.
Any deviantion of a governmnent to this is a government not doing it's sworn duty.
READ THIS:
Any right GIVEN by government is not a right at all. It is a privilege.
Why should a right be given??
Just "recognise it", protect it and that is all that needs be done.
But to "give it" implies you never had it UNTIL governmnent gave it to you.
Strange Days are here,
CATO
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.