Does The Constitution Pertain Only To US Citizens?

[libertygrl]

I'm having an interesting discussion on another forum with a conservative and could use some input.

According to Judge Napolitano, the Constitution does not grant us our rights. Our rights come from our humanity. No government or piece of paper can take or give us the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If that is the case, doesn't the constitution protect all people living in the U.S. and not just citizens?

The other guy's position is:

"The US Constitution only pertains to the USA. The concepts incorporated should apply around the world but they do not because too much of the world is under the control of tyrants whose citizens are more concerned with security than with freedom.

The first responsibility of the US government is to protect the US Constitution, the borders and the citizens of the US.

“…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

While the Founding Fathers took steps to prevent a standing army, which could be used against the people, they also provided for maintaining a Navy because of the threat of the Barbary Pirates (I suggest you look up who the Barbary Pirates were at the time)

“To declare War…make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

(I don't know why he got into all that other stuff) but this whole discussion stems from our disagreement over the building of the NYC Mosque. I don't care for the idea of it being built so close to ground zero, but I always side with the Constitution. He feels that the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment. (which I agree with, but I think he feels ALL Muslims practice this sort of radical Islam) Any thoughts?

[Danke]

http://sedm.org/LibertyU/CitAndSovereignty.pdf

[Baptist]

(I don't know why he got into all that other stuff) but this whole discussion stems from our disagreement over the building of the NYC Mosque. I don't care for the idea of it being built so close to ground zero, but I always side with the Constitution. He feels that the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment. (which I agree with, but I think he feels ALL Muslims practice this sort of radical Islam) Any thoughts?

Yes. Your friend is a guber. He is implying that all Muslims are foreigners. As far as I know, the mosque is being built by American citizens.

[muzzled dogg]

The rights are god given and thus apply to everyone. Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. As far as I see us federal govt was instituted among Americans to protect their own rights

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Words appearing in the Constitution:

State(s) ~ 126 times
United States ~ 84 times
Person ~ 49 times
Citizen ~ 24 times
People ~ 10 times
Subjects ~ 2 times

[brandon]

The constitution doesn't apply to anyone. Rights are an illusion.

[libertygrl]

Didn't think it was possible but I believe I'm more confused now than I was before I posted my question. Thanks anyway!

[BlackSand]

I think it completely depends on who youre asking. I would think Life Liberty and Property are everyones rights no matter who you are or where you are. But then again...I support open immigration. I think blocking someone from buying land is blocking the right to property where as blocking food would be blocking the right to life. Both morally wrong. Although obviously one is quite worse than the other.

[stevewo]

It is an interesting question and most people mistakenly believe rights guaranteed by the constitution only pertain to US citizens. It is not so simple though. For the most part the courts have taken the position that rights are not restricted to US Citizens - For example in Boumediene vs Bush, Rasul vs Bush and Al Odah vs The USA the court extended the writ of habeas corpus to non-citizens held at GITMO. On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush, ruled 6-3 in favor of the detainees. This landmark ruling affirmed the right of non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Justice John Stevens wrote for the majority that the right to habeas corpus does not depend on citizenship. The court also extended other rights such as the right to counsel and attorney-client privacy. After much legal maneuvering by the administration the issue came before the Supreme Court again. On July 12, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the detainees in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, they again reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and granted detainees (non-citizens) the writ of habeas corpus.

The rights however only apply once a person is within the territory of the United States. This is why those detained in foreign countries (Afghanistan for example) are not required to be Mirandized until they enter US territory. Such statements such as "now the Obama administration wants to Mirandize terrorists on the battle field" are not correct.

Not all constitutional rights though apply to non-citizens (the right to vote). For a good discussion of this question see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's blog (http://volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml).

Hope that helps.

[BlackSand]

Isnt Obama going in the same direction as Bush with Miranda rights and habeus corpus? Last I heard he was doing all the same things Bush was doing. The only difference being that the left is turning a blind eye. The right also because if they draw attention to it, it would actually be discussed.

[ClayTrainor]

The constitution doesn't apply to anyone. Rights are an illusion.

YouTube - George Carlin - Rights

[stevewo]

Isnt Obama going in the same direction as Bush with Miranda rights and habeus corpus? Last I heard he was doing all the same things Bush was doing. The only difference being that the left is turning a blind eye. The right also because if they draw attention to it, it would actually be discussed.

Yes - you are correct. especially when it comes to "Extraordinary Rendetion" which is transferring detainees to other countries. He has also continued to hold GITMO detainees that the Administration considers too dangerous but cannot be prosecuted for lack of evidence. The Obama administration wants it both ways - they want to send some to trial in civilian courts, but only those they are confident will be convicted. Below is a short comparison of Obama and Bush from the NYT:

Mr. Obama has preserved much of Mr. Bush's counterterrorism strategy. He not only continued drone missile strikes against terrorist cells in Pakistan, but he also escalated them. American troop levels in Afghanistan are tripling on his watch. He kept the surveillance program, military commissions and rendition authority he inherited, and he plans to continue holding some detainees without charges.

I would also add that not only has Obama continued drone missile attacks on terrorists, but also on American citizens.

The ACLU also has published an excellent article entitled "Establishing a New Normall" which shows how the Obama administration has continued many (if not most) of the Bush policies.

http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...nary-rendition

http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...olicies-says-a

[BlackSand]

Off topic: How do libertarians feel about the ACLU anyways?

[Bradley in DC]

SCOTUS says when Constitution says "people" it means all people here, when it says "citizen" it means citizen. Why is that so hard to understand?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23846267/J...-John-Ashcroft

see US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

[TexanRudeBoy]

Isnt Obama going in the same direction as Bush with Miranda rights and habeus corpus? Last I heard he was doing all the same things Bush was doing. The only difference being that the left is turning a blind eye. The right also because if they draw attention to it, it would actually be discussed.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com has been absolutely skewering his fellow "progressives" on this. I would HIGHLY recommend reading his blog regularly.

Go to updateII on this link for a good list of some of the Bushisms Obama has continued or strengthened (the whole post is a great one though):


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...10/08/10/gibbs

[TexanRudeBoy]

Off topic: How do libertarians feel about the ACLU anyways?

They are politicized like most organizations but they fight the good fight the vast majority of the time. They are currently helping Anwar Al Awlaki's father bring suit against Obama for his due process free, far away from any battlefield assassination program for American citizens.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ons/index.html

[Romulus]

Off topic: How do libertarians feel about the ACLU anyways?

They'll stand up for all your 'rights' expect the one to defend your property with lethal force.

[DisillusionedPatriot]

I think there's some equivocation going on here. Rights are separate from the Constitution. Rights are innate to mankind, and confer themselves equally on all men. Natural rights are not granted by any earthly authority. The Declaration of Independence makes this clear:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In other words, rights come first; a legitimate government is one that protects these inalienable, innate rights.

The Constitution confers civil rights upon the American citizens. Those civil rights include the right to be protected against the infringement of their natural rights. The American government, bound by the Constitution, is required to respect the rights of all its citizens. The Constitution is not a contract between all peoples of the world, but merely between Americans and their government. Neither the government nor the American people can be construed to incur a duty to protect these rights for all individuals. We do certainly have the obligation not to interfere with rights.

Each sovereign nation must be responsible for crafting its own contract between citizens and governments. Thus though natural rights are uniform and universal, civil rights may vary drastically. A nation that does not grant its people the right to freedom of speech, or religion, or a fair trial, infringes on the rights of those citizens. However, it is incumbent upon the people of that nation to change from within, and demand a legitimate and representative government, or at least one without such flagrant violations of human rights. It is nowhere within the boundaries of the Constitution or any legitimate government to enforce our nation's principles overseas.

[torchbearer]

the constitution only pertains to the federal government. it doesn't grant rights, it only outlines the powers the government has, and list a few powers the feds shall never obtain (bill of rights)
this is the answer you need. your question is incorrect to begin with.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - George Carlin - Rights

I love that clip and always manage to muster a chuckle.

"Right this way"

[stevewo]

I believe lbrtygrl was simply asking:

..doesn't the constitution protect all people living in the U.S. and not just citizens?

and

He feels that the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment. (which I agree with, but I think he feels ALL Muslims practice this sort of radical Islam) Any thoughts?

and the subject of the post is:

Does the constitution pertain only to US citizens

The question is do Constitutional rights protect (secure, pertain, protect or whatever) anyone - non-citizen and/or citizen. The answer is straight forward - yes.

lbrtygrl - since you quote Judge Napolitano maybe the easiest way to understand this is to use his words:

Judge NapolitanoFrom a debate with Lou Dobbs:

It's interesting to note a little piece of trivia: The U.S. Constitution prohibits only two types of private action (everything else is a restriction on what the government can do. So please stop arguing that illegal immigrants, or foreigners in general, are not protected by the Constitution in the U.S. They most decidedly are, since the Constitution addresses itself to*what the U.S. government is permitted to do*within its jurisdiction). Those two actions? Individuals in the U.S. cannot own slaves (thirteenth amendment), and, for a time anyways, they had to put up with prohibition (eighteenth amendment). Happily, the latter was repealed. So, really, there's now only one thing in the Constitution addressing itself to what Americans can't do.

From: A Nation of Sheep

Though there is some disagreement over whether a citizen can be deemed an "enemy combatant" under the Military Commissions Act, this is a moot point for several reasons. First, if the legislation is that ambiguous, the distinction will not stand. Second, the Bush administration has already pronounced American citizens, such as Jose Padilla, as enemy combatants and held them*incommunicado*without charges while subjecting them to sophisticated psychological torture techniques. Unless this abuse of power is overturned, a precedent will have been established. But most importantly, our natural rights do not come from our status as citizens; they come from our Creator. Violating the basic rights of the accused simply because they are noncitizens is wrong, period.

lbrtygrl - I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment." What practices are you referring too? Irregardless, the words of Justice Kennedy should offer some guidance in this.

Writing for the majority in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he states:

security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being the freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

The key words being "fidelity to freedoms first principles" and "personal liberty." These are the guiding principles and they extend (legally) to citizens and non-citizens in the USA proper and US controlled territory.

I hope that helps you in your discussions. I am curious to know how your discussions go so please post an update if you have the time.

[oyarde]

The Constitution applies to Americans, the physical land, ie States and Commonwealths. So if a person in the United States but a foreigner commits an act of violence or does something illegal he is subject to our court system and can plead the 5th etc. I really am surprised to see a debate about this, the Constitution only does not apply to diplomats here in the United States.

Diplomats , foreign officials , foreign military , anyone who represents another country in some capacity ?

[romacox]

the constitution only pertains to the federal government. it doesn't grant rights, it only outlines the powers the government has, and list a few powers the feds shall never obtain (bill of rights)
this is the answer you need. your question is incorrect to begin with.

• You are right on Torchbearer...the Constitution does not pertain to U.S. citizens. It pertains to the U.S. Federal Government.

• The Founding Fathers said our rights are given to us, not by the government, but by our Creator (words have been changed to humanity to include those who do not believe in a Creator)

[libertygrl]

I believe lbrtygrl was simply asking:



and



and the subject of the post is:



The question is do Constitutional rights protect (secure, pertain, protect or whatever) anyone - non-citizen and/or citizen. The answer is straight forward - yes.

lbrtygrl - since you quote Judge Napolitano maybe the easiest way to understand this is to use his words:

Judge NapolitanoFrom a debate with Lou Dobbs:


From: A Nation of Sheep


lbrtygrl - I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment." What practices are you referring too? Irregardless, the words of Justice Kennedy should offer some guidance in this.
.

Yes, that was a big help thank you! What I was referring to by the quote from above, had to do with the discussion I've been having over the issue of protecting religious freedom with regards to Islam. The guy I've been debating is of the opinion that just because we have free speech in this country, you still can't yell out fire in a movie theater. He was trying to make the point that Islam (in his opinion) is a violent religion which seeks to harm other people. So in that respect, it should not be protected under the constitution. He believes this is a point that Ron Paul and people like us refuse to understand (even though he agrees with Ron Paul 97% of the time on other issues.)

I've been debating him for three days now but I've given up. He's just set in his ways. Despite showing him confirmed reports where the CIA and the Moussad had a hand in radicalizing these groups he just said it was a bunch of hog wash. (the guy's a former Vietnam Vet and is pretty knowledgeable about the NWO and other shadowy agendas so I'm surprised his mind is closed off on this particular issue.)

[WaltM]

I wouldn't take any legal advice from Danke.

He couldn't even defend his positions on tax evasion.