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."
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? From what the 14th Amendment says, "citizens" are clearly protected. It's silent on foreigners.
I believe that technically, a state of war can exist without a declaration of war. It exists any time our country is under attack.
Never ratified, transferring all authority from State Legislatures to the Supreme Court. "equal protection" can mean anything to any lawyer. The illegitimate establisment of Judicial Oligarchy in the United States.
Not quite.
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.
The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
"Verdugo-Urquidez also relies on a series of cases in which we have held that aliens enjoy certain constitutional rights.
(p.271)See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211-212 (1982) (illegal aliens protected by Equal Protection Clause);
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953) (resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment);
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945) (resident aliens have First Amendment rights);
Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931) (Just Compensation Clause of Fifth Amendment);
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (resident aliens entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights);
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) (Fourteenth Amendment protects resident aliens).
These cases, however, establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country. See, e.g., Plyler, supra, at 212
(The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment "'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction...'") (quoting Yick Wo, supra, at 369); Kwong Hai Chew, supra, at 596, n.5
("The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders") (quoting Bridges, supra, at 161 (concurring "
One has to read the quoted cases to completely understand the summary in parenthesis.
But in the case of a foreigner, the threshold for due process is much lower, essentially removing foreigners from protection under the bill of rights.
I suppose, like all ideas that allow the exceptional individual to rise above the mean, it was too utopian a vision to last. Now even so called conservatives have effectively abandoned the idea of inalienable rights and want the government to have the power to decide who has what privileges.
So essentially, they have no liberty that can not be easily taken away, thus their LIBERTY (an "unalienable" right) is NOT protected from the States by the 14th Amendment, nor from the US Government by the 5th Amendment.
I believe this contradicts what Barr said. Maybe Barr didn't really say anything that meant anything, when you get right down to it. Just a posturing moment for another politician.
It is my understanding that once Congress declares War, certain legal niceties kick into play. Otherwise, why wake up our Congressmen and bother them over trivials?
Interesting. I hadn't known that. The bit about engaging in campaigning, I mean.
If you break any of our laws, you are subject to deportation, although the judge can choose not to enforce that.
Not surprising, but I wouldn't read this as a lack of a right. The U.S. should retain the option to tell people to get out rather than having to pay their living expenses.
Those are just two of the "rights" you do not have if you are not a citizen. I'm sure there are others, but those two stand out as areas where alians are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
The first you mention is a right. The second is a matter of punishment not meted out to citizens.
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.