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."

[ninenot]

I'm not so sure that God granted me the right to bear arms,

God grants us all the right to self-defense--along with the DUTY to defend our families, homes, and homeland. SOME of the rights enumerated in the BOR are simply prior to the existence of any State, and self-defense, which is the OBVIOUS purpose of Amendment #2, is one of them. (BTW, that 'self-defense' is also applicable to defending oneself against an over-reaching State, which is why #2 is written with the 'militia of the [several] States' in mind.)

[ninenot]

Thanks for keeping up the fight. I am sure that Barr simply spoke in 'sound-bite,' because it is CLEAR in the Constitution that enemy soldiers (illegal troops) are NOT protected by the Constitution (see Human Events of two weeks ago.)

Barr either didn't want to get into the somewhat lengthy and subtle argument regarding 'illegal troops' or (perhaps) forgot about it.

I cannot imagine Barr offering Mirandas to mass killers who are foreigners on our soil--can you??

[H.Akston]

I cannot imagine Barr offering Mirandas to mass killers who are foreigners on our soil--can you??

No I can not, and I think once he thought about the implications of what he said, he'd throw in a few conditions. (you're welcome :)

[H.Akston]

653

[Conservative til I die]

If Libertarians could govern angels, they'd have them hooked on crack in a few weeks and turn them into men.

LOL, hookers as well./

[H.Akston]

LOL!

[jammer]

Excuse me, I didn't side with anyone. I didn't read that post, and I do my own thinking. I agree that it may be semantics, but sometimes semantics are important to meaning. If you want to debate me, fine. I will make my own arguments. Don't debate another person's arguments in a reply to me.

Other than that, I agree with what you say.

[H.Akston]

Happy New Year :)

[H.Akston]

"Where do you get this "aiding terrorists" stuff from?"

A terrorist can be on US soil, (I assume you know) and you want our Bill of Rights to "aid" a "terrorist", (assuming, of course that you think the Bill of Rights is an "aid"), simply by virtue of the scumbag being on US soil. That is where I got that "aiding terrorists stuff" from.

Also, Rush mentioned a few days ago that he sadly wondered why in the world some senators and lawyers feel the need to "take up the cause of terrorists' rights."

I have that same wonder about some "freepers".

[Jerry_M]

First, let's define what the "Bill of Rights" actually is. Is it a document that grants rights? No, it is a document that "documents" rights that already exist. In fact, many of the founding fathers hated the idea of having a Bill of Rights due to the fact that they were concerned that there would be some who would be led to believe that the document was the source of rights.

Now, if the "Bill of Rights" is not the source of these rights, from where do they originate? The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that these are God given rights that exist from the Creator, and that they are thus unalienable/inalienable. In other words, they cannot be taken away. The Declaration also makes it clear that these rights are for all men, everywhere.

As a result, all men, everywhere have rights. Anyone who thinks that the "protections" of the Bill of Rights only extend to US citizens knows nothing about rights, or their origin.

[Jerry_M]

Oops. looks like I came late to this thread. I certainly hope that someone else raised my points somewhere back in the first 670 posts of this thing! (And if so, why are we still discussing this?)

[tpaine]

You have some strange inablity to see that our republic was based on the idea of persons everywhere having inalienable rights. - Those same 'persons', legally in US jurisdiction, are fully protected by our constitution.

Illegal aliens are dealt with by various US Codes, -- again, -- under constitutional law, - depending on the criminality of their 'illegal' status. Thus, - terrorists can be dealt with by military tribunals.

Why you seem to be having such a problem with such simple concepts is best left to mental health experts, imo.

[beavus]

Of course it's clear that the Founders only had citizens in mind when Jefferson wrote in the DoI:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all American citizens are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

[H.Akston]

I could say that there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, or The Bill Of Rights, that distinguishes Turkish "persons" from American "persons", so all Turks are protected by the Bill of Rights, as well, whether or not they're on US soil, by your logic. You know this is not true.

You therefore, obviously, have to read more than just the Bill of Rights to interpret correctly who is meant by "person". You're not doing that.

If you're going to liberally define "person", for the purposes of your argument with me, you're going to have to protect everyone in the world with the Bill of Rights. You can't have it both ways.

[H.Akston]

You have some strange inablity to see that our republic was based on the idea of persons everywhere having inalienable rights. "

More of your falsely accusatory flailing nonsense. We all have unalienable rights.

You just can't see that the issue is - who gets the privilege of having those rights protected by our system and the costs taxpayers incurr for some of those protections. Who gets a free lawyer and who doesn't? Who can and cannot expect to have their hard drive searched only with a warrant. Mr. Moussaoui's "private" things are fair game, and he can be held indefinitly. He's not getting a speedy trial, and therefore is not covered by the Bill of Rights.

You're trying to cloud the issue by saying what is happening to him is "constitutional". Of course it's constitutional, you loon. What the issue here is: Is it in accordance with the Bill of Rights, and should it be? The answer to that is a resounding NO, which makes me right, and you and Barr wrong.

[beavus]

You are being too absurd for words. A state's laws do not have jurisdiction beyond its borders, as a matter of practicability. However, the Founder's justification for human rights has nothing to do with something as arbitrary as borders. It has to do, to them, with the nature of human beings themselves. The difference within and without our borders is not rights that the state grants. The difference is that within the borders of the U.S., each person's human rights are recognized and protected. Man's nature is the primary, the U.S. Constitution was a creation designed in recognition of that primary.

Your arbitrariness and denial of the Constitution's basis in nature rather than in the stipulation of men denigrates this nation's founding document and the men who created it.

[H.Akston]

Your arbitrariness and denial of the Constitution's basis in nature rather than in the stipulation of men denigrates this nation's founding document and the men who created it."

Total undadulterated BlindnesS to what I am saying. The Constitution is a legal document, while the Declaration is an emotional one. Even so, the Constitution has quite a basis in nature. Its original checks and balances were a near perfect structure that reflected the nature of man. It is not natural for a free lawyer to be granted to a scumbag like a foreign terrorist on our soil. Enemy soldiers on our soil have no guarantee of rights under the Bill of Rights. Barr made no such exceptions.

[beavus]

You had said,

You therefore, obviously, have to read more than just the Bill of Rights to interpret correctly who is meant by "person".

I've repeatedly read the Bill of Rights, DoI, USC, and other documents reflecting the thoughts of the Founders and have nowhere seen where they concluded that nation of origin determined whether or not one was a "person" (as YOU say) and thus "endowed by their creator".

Excuse me if I'm blind to your thinking, but I'm limitted by what you write. Maybe you should try making the two coincide.

[H.Akston]

I've repeatedly read the Bill of Rights, DoI, USC, and other documents reflecting the thoughts of the Founders and have nowhere seen where they concluded that nation of origin determined whether or not one was a "person" (as YOU say) and thus "endowed by their creator".

They didn't mean for the Bill of Rights to cover Englishmen in England, did they? Surely they had some idea of just who these rights were intended to protect? Why can't you see that ?

[beavus]

They didn't mean for the Bill of Rights to cover Englishmen in England, did they? Surely they had some idea of just who these rights were intended to protect? Why can't you see that ?

Legislation only has jurisdiction where it has jurisdiction--usually within the borders of the state represented by the legislating body. That's just a matter of practicality, and even that fortunately is not always adhered to by the US as when it supports foreign insurgents or leaders that are deemed more likely to uphold the natural rights of individuals.

The justification for this nation, the argument for its legitimacy, is described in the Declaration of Independence as an observation of nature "self-evident" and not something that is to be arbitrarily stipulated by some deliberative body. For any government, and the US Constitution, to be founded in truth it must be consistent with nature.

Thus, either the U.S. is illegitimate by the standards of the DoI or else the Constitution is consistent with the fact "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, yes, Englishman in England have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether or not anyone is able to protect those rights. It is too bad that the US cannot protect everyone's rights, but it can protect the rights of everyone within its borders. You seem to be arguing that since the US cannot protect all people's rights, it should be allowed to violate the rights of some.