Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who does the Bill of Rights cover?
This Week | 2 Dec 01 | Bob Barr

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."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: billofrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 701-714 next last
To: VeritatisSplendor
most of the 9/11 terrorist were here legally...
61 posted on 12/02/2001 9:35:58 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
That is not the answer to my question (period).

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? From what the 14th Amendment says, "citizens" are clearly protected. It's silent on foreigners.

62 posted on 12/02/2001 9:36:15 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
I'm with you there, Bro! Amen.
63 posted on 12/02/2001 9:37:30 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: Don Myers
"during time of war are and should be an exception" Which, technically, does not apply to our current situation.

I believe that technically, a state of war can exist without a declaration of war. It exists any time our country is under attack.

65 posted on 12/02/2001 9:39:36 AM PST by Wissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
The Squalid 14th Amendment

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.

66 posted on 12/02/2001 9:41:46 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Gumption
14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. That's the answer to your question. (period)

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.

67 posted on 12/02/2001 9:42:34 AM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
Is that right? Ever heard of the voting rights act?
68 posted on 12/02/2001 9:43:27 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: '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.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

69 posted on 12/02/2001 9:43:32 AM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DSH
See post #67
70 posted on 12/02/2001 9:45:07 AM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The Supreme Court view:

"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.

71 posted on 12/02/2001 9:46:00 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DSH
" person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "

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.

72 posted on 12/02/2001 9:47:49 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: NewAmsterdam
The enlightenment philosophers recognized the universality of rights but also recognized that governments violated them all the time. This poses a considerable dilemma and was that, I think, what led to the still revolutionary idea of a government limited to specifically enumerated powers. The true genius of the Bill of Rights is it did not grant rights to anyone but forbade the government from infringing them. This distinction is generally lost on the current generation of the publicly schooled.

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.

73 posted on 12/02/2001 9:54:24 AM PST by athiestwithagun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
"; if here illegally, they can be deported or detained without violating their constitutional rights!"

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.

74 posted on 12/02/2001 9:56:40 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
"I believe that technically, a state of war can exist without a declaration of war. It exists any time our country is under attack."

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?

75 posted on 12/02/2001 9:57:06 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
takes one to know one. You're the only person here who didn't add value to this discussion.
76 posted on 12/02/2001 10:00:26 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: go star go
"If the Bill or Rights applies to everyone then why do we have INS raids?"

The Bill of Rights does not address one's right to be here (i.e., immigration). It does address your rights while you are here (other than the right to be here).

Can you/anyone name ONE United States Supreme Court case which holds or even implies that resident aliens in this country do not enjoy all of the protection of the Bill of Rights? No, you can't, because all of the justices --Scalia and Thomas included -- recognize this basic undeniable fact. They may disagree on the precise application of a particular right under a specific set of facts but NO ONE takes the position that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens.
77 posted on 12/02/2001 10:01:27 AM PST by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BohDaThone; Gumption
Only the first TEN ammendments make up the Bill of Rights.
78 posted on 12/02/2001 10:03:13 AM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
If you are here as an alien resident, you may not engage in political activity (1st Amendment) by campaigning for a candidate, donating money or time to political campaigns, etc, and are subject to deportation if you do.

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.

79 posted on 12/02/2001 10:03:51 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima
Then why is Sen Mccain concerned that terrorist can buy guns at a gun show. If they are protected by the 2nd amendment then they can buy them legally at a gun show.
80 posted on 12/02/2001 10:04:13 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 701-714 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson