Constitutional protections for who?

[McChronagle]

With the recent events at Gitmo, the argument whether the constitutional rights are applied to people or solely US citizens is resurfacing. Does the constitution protect all people from unjust punishments/acts of force? if not, wouldn't Gitmo still be unconstitutional because even though some may regard the prisoners as POWs, there was never a constitutional declaration of war.

[talkingpointes]

With the recent events at Gitmo, the argument whether the constitutional rights are applied to people or solely US citizens is resurfacing. Does the constitution protect all people from unjust punishments/acts of force? if not, wouldn't Gitmo still be unconstitutional because even though some may regard the prisoners as POWs, there was never a constitutional declaration of war.

The constitution protects people up to the point of where it still protects the government, when that ends, all bets are off. Gitmo is unconstitutional because it's very inception included the invasion of Cuba, although one wasn't meant to create the other. Gitmo is completely unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. 99% of the inmates they now fear will strike us again if they were released. So they are stuck and it's convenient to have a torture chamber in a dictators backyard - especially one that has been a traditional phantom enemy.

Anyone else ever found that repugnant, Gitmo being in Cuba, and how much most Americans hate Castro.

[McChronagle]

so when you say it protects people to the point of where it still protects the gov, do you mean it protects all people equally until you are a threatening us and our sovereignty?

[APAT Warrior]

The way I see it is this way. The Constitution applies to citizens of this country. Not illegal's and certainly not detainees at Gitmo. Should we be in Cuba there for that also? No, I don't think so. But because we have created so many of our own enemies that want to kill us and destroy this country, we have put ourselves into this position of having the Gitmo's and Abu Graib's.

[APAT Warrior]

And who this applies to also should really just be common sense. I mean, I don't even know how questions like this even arise from people in politics.

[ClydeCoulter]

If you read the Declaration of Independence, it states that "ALL MEN" are created...

[APAT Warrior]

If you read the Declaration of Independence, it states that "ALL MEN" are created...

That maybe true but that doesn't mean everyone who is an illegal get's to come here and bask in our nation without being a citizen either.

There is a reason we have a process for immigrants or in their case, illegal's. Then again, if you're here illegally then that means there is very little chance of that person actually wanting to do the right thing to become an American since the very act of being here illegally makes you a felon and deserving of deportation. And that D.O.I. was created because of American's fighting for independence, not us fighting for every other nation's independence.

[erowe1]

Who cares if it's constitutional?

Do people really think that it would be wrong to capture innocent people and imprison them indefinitely without trial, but then if you put something in the Constitution saying it's ok, that would make it ok?

[ClydeCoulter]

So, APAT, you think that because someone makes laws that call you a felon, then your intent and actions are deplorable? And, you think those people come here, illegally, but don't want to be a part of this country or to succeed here? The D.O.I was about more than just the current problems at the time. It referenced past and future events.

[erowe1]

The way I see it is this way. The Constitution applies to citizens of this country.

That's not right.

The Constitution, even if we were to presume it were legitimate, applies to the federal government. It enumerates what the federal government supposedly may do. Anything outside those enumerated powers is unconstitutional. Unless the Constitution enumerated some power that involved violating the rights on noncitizens, then it would have to be the case that to do so would be unconstitutional.

[APAT Warrior]

That's not right.

The Constitution, even if we were to presume it were legitimate, applies to the federal government. It enumerates what the federal government supposedly may do. Anything outside those enumerated powers is unconstitutional. Unless the Constitution enumerated some power that involved violating the rights on noncitizens, then it would have to be the case that to do so would be unconstitutional.

You're only half correct. Illegal's are not citizens and are not supposed to be here. It makes sense to have borders as each nation does. You HAVE to have border laws because if you don't, then anyone can just come and set up tent. That protects us as well. If you're suggesting that anyone can come here because of our founding documents without becoming a citizen, I think you're ill advised. The Constitution also applies to the citizens considering we make up the government. The government federal and on state levels do not exist without our participation for being the people who are representative of the citizenry.

[APAT Warrior]

If other countries wish to adopt a form of their own Declaration of Independence, they should. Liberty should abound all over. But it doesn't. America is unique and no other place is like it. We must defend liberty and our lives from enemies both foreign and domestic. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who comes here illegally and ignores the law that requires a certain course to citizenship are foreign enemies.

[erowe1]

You're only half correct. Illegal's are not citizens and are not supposed to be here.

I don't see how this reply has anything to do with what I said. Are you saying that it is constitutional for the federal government to exercise powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution?

Also, since when are only citizens supposed to be here? Do you see that somewhere in the Constitution?

[erowe1]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who comes here illegally and ignores the law that requires a certain course to citizenship are foreign enemies.

Is this how you feel about all laws that politicians make up? Drug laws, tax laws, food laws, etc.?

As I see it, it's precisely those politicians who are the enemy.

[APAT Warrior]

Is this how you feel about all laws that politicians make up? Drug laws, tax laws, food laws, etc.?

As I see it, it's precisely those politicians who are the enemy.

You don't know me very well, but yes, that's how I feel about alot of those laws that they keep making.

[APAT Warrior]

I don't see how this reply has anything to do with what I said. Are you saying that it is constitutional for the federal government to exercise powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution?

Also, since when are only citizens supposed to be here? Do you see that somewhere in the Constitution?

Um, this is America, we are American's and we have a duty and right to protect our country from invasions, incursions and attacks from enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are being attacked as it stands from both foreign and domestic enemies but I consider our domestic problems a much more greater issue. If you actually support the idea that anyone can just come on over here, set up tent and do whatever they want because you're saying that the Constitution applies to everyone else also, then that is insane.

[erowe1]

You don't know me very well, but yes, that's how I feel about alot of those laws that they keep making.

Admittedly, I don't know you at all.

But understand that if you feel that way about all laws that politicians pass, then you shouldn't pretend to have any interest at all in whether or not something is constitutional.

[erowe1]

Um, this is America, we are American's and we have a duty and right to protect our country from invasions, incursions and attacks from enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are being attacked as it stands from both foreign and domestic enemies but I consider our domestic problems a much more greater issue. If you actually support the idea that anyone can just come on over here, set up tent and do whatever they want because you're saying that the Constitution applies to everyone else also, then that is insane.

Again, is this supposed to be a response to anything I said?

As for what I think about the Constitution, I personally don't think it really applies to anyone at all. But even those it supposedly does apply to when it's taken at face value, it is the government that it limits, not us. And it limits that government by enumerating its powers. If the Constitution doesn't enumerate some power that includes what's going on at Gitmo, then it's unconstitutional. If the Constitution doesn't enumerate some power that includes telling me whom I can and cannot hire, then such a power is unconstitutional.

I can't even tell if you're saying that things like those are constitutional or not. But if you think they are, then the challenge for you is simple, just point to where in the Constitution you're talking about.

[APAT Warrior]

Admittedly, I don't know you at all.

But understand that if you feel that way about all laws that politicians pass, then you shouldn't pretend to have any interest at all in whether or not something is constitutional.

I never said all laws, you did. I saw alot of the laws. Alot of the laws are not moral or just and don't pass Constitutional mustard.

[Origanalist]

I never said all laws, you did. I saw alot of the laws. Alot of the laws are not moral or just and don't pass Constitutional mustard.

So how do you feel about those? Should you obey them? If so, why?

[APAT Warrior]

Again, is this supposed to be a response to anything I said?

As for what I think about the Constitution, I personally don't think it really applies to anyone at all. But even those it supposedly does apply to when it's taken at face value, it is the government that it limits, not us. And it limits that government by enumerating its powers. If the Constitution doesn't enumerate some power that includes what's going on at Gitmo, then it's unconstitutional. If the Constitution doesn't enumerate some power that includes telling me whom I can and cannot hire, then such a power is unconstitutional.

I can't even tell if you're saying that things like those are constitutional or not. But if you think they are, then the challenge for you is simple, just point to where in the Constitution you're talking about.

1st ten Amendments are the Bill of Rights. Those are specifically for Us, The People. It also places restrictions to the federal government and it gives the states and people certain rights not delegated to the federal level. As for whatever question I haven't answered either, I don't think any answer I will give you will satisfy you. I'm not here to make people agree with me, I'm just stating facts. You don't have to agree and I'm not going to try to convince. The stuff you're talking about (not applying to just citizens, Constitution only applies to federal government, etc.), all of that, it's insane. You clearly do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, D.O.I. and about We The People and our duties as American's to protect this country, our lives and keep the government limited. I'm not going to argue with you any further on this, you're free to feel whatever you want. Thanks.

[erowe1]

I never said all laws, you did. I saw alot of the laws. Alot of the laws are not moral or just and don't pass Constitutional mustard [sic].

In the words of yours that I quote in that post that you're replying to here, you don't see the word "laws"?

[APAT Warrior]

So how do you feel about those? Should you obey them? If so, why?

If a law is unjust/not Constitutional, no, why should I or anyone follow those laws? If you're all trying to say that the laws on borders are wrong, and that somehow illegal's have protection under the Constitution as well, then that is false.

[erowe1]

1st ten Amendments are the Bill of Rights. Those are specifically for Us, The People

It doesn't matter. Even if the Bill of Rights never existed, violating those things still would never be constitutional. The Bill of Rights doesn't make a single thing unconstitutional that wouldn't be unconstitutional anyway without the Bill of Rights. In order for something to be constitutional it must be enumerated in the Constitution.

[erowe1]

If a law is unjust/not Constitutional, no, why should I or anyone follow those laws?

We shouldn't.

But that's what you claimed to believe. Now it seems your position has changed.

[erowe1]

The stuff you're talking about (not applying to just citizens, Constitution only applies to federal government, etc.), all of that, it's insane. You clearly do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, D.O.I. and about We The People and our duties as American's to protect this country, our lives and keep the government limited.

So your position is that it is constitutional for the federal government to do things beyond those that are enumerated in the Constitution?

[ZENemy]

Those that are having trouble understanding the constitution, I recommend 2 things.

1. Read the thing, front to back, a few times.

2. Watch this video.

3. Read it again.

[Mini-Me]

With the recent events at Gitmo, the argument whether the constitutional rights are applied to people or solely US citizens is resurfacing. Does the constitution protect all people from unjust punishments/acts of force? if not, wouldn't Gitmo still be unconstitutional because even though some may regard the prisoners as POWs, there was never a constitutional declaration of war.

The Constitution protects everyone in most cases, for two reasons:

First, the Bill of Rights is intentionally redundant. Even without the Bill of Rights, the federal government cannot Constitutionally do most of the things prohibited by it in most cases, because it is and always was bound by enumerated powers.

Second, even without enumerated powers, most of the Bill of Rights very clearly applies to everyone. Let's get down to brass tacks:

The First Amendment is a blanket restriction on the government. "Congress shall make no law..."

The Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...." The word People is not defined in the Constitution, so those who prefer a strict definition of People as "citizens" could plausibly make an argument to that effect. However, this is a VERY dangerous interpretation to promote, considering the government is trying to [unconstitutionally] claim the power to strip anyone of citizenship at will.

The Third Amendment starts, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner..." Any house does not mean, "any house owned by a citizen." It means any house owned by anyone, period.

The Fourth Amendment starts, "The right of the people to be secure..." According to the language used, the same rules apply here as with the Second Amendment.

The entire text of the Fifth Amendment reads, "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 offence 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." The first sentence applies to anyone who is not "in actual service" in time of War or public danger. That is, the only exceptions are as follows: A grand jury is not required for someone in the active service of the US armed forces during a war or time of "public danger," a grand jury is not required for someone in the active service of the militia during a war or time of "public danger" (when the militia is indeed actively fighting; however, note that the very meaning of "militia" was quite specific to the Framers and carried its own rules), and a grand jury is presumably not required for someone in the active service of some other military or paramilitary force (e.g. actual enemy combatants). However, the REST of the protections starting from "nor shall any person..." effectively apply to anyone and everyone. The "due process" part is elaborated upon in the Sixth Amendment, so the Fifth and Sixth work in concert.

The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." "In all criminal prosecutions..." applies to absolutely everyone charged with anything...and referring back to the Fifth, anyone who is held (deprived of liberty) MUST be charged and given this due process: "nor shall any person...; ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Seventh Amendment says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." This applies to all suits at common law, whether brought by citizens or other legal residents. Some might argue that this does not apply to illegal aliens, since illegal aliens who can't legally reside here would be automatically precluded from participating in a civil suit, but the very status of "illegal aliens" is Constitutionally questionable: This is going to be unpopular with the "border hounds" here, but the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government ANY power over determining who may and may not legally reside within its borders. The only possible justification for considering anyone an illegal alien would be an extremely broad interpretation of Congress's power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It's possible to derive the concept of illegal aliens from that power by considering any entry unauthorized by the federal government to be an "invasion," but it's a bit of a stretch.

The Eighth Amendment says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." ...period. It doesn't say "shall not be required for citizens," or "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except on foreign brown people," or anything like that. It is a blanket restriction on government power as it applies to any person in the entire world.

The Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 gave this as a reason for the Ninth Amendment: "That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution." In other words, this (along with the Tenth Amendment) was to ensure that the Bill of Rights would NOT be misinterpreted as a reversal of enumerated powers. As such, it applies to the government as a whole.

The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Its purpose and application is similar to the Ninth Amendment, and they appear to reinforce each other to avoid any "loopholes." As such, the government doesn't even try to find ways around them anymore; it simply ignores them.

Let's reiterate and elaborate on the exceptions, where the Bill of Rights may not apply to absolutely everyone:
An implicit argument based on legal residency (but not citizenship) can apply to the Seventh Amendment, but the very concept of illegal residency is Constitutionally questionable in the first place. Also, a small subset of people (basically, actual combatants) are not protected by the "grand jury indictment" part of the Fifth Amendment, but everyone (period) is protected by the rest, with respect to the US government's actions.

The Second and Fourth Amendments use the phrasing "the People," and you could plausibly make an argument that "the People" specifically refers exclusively to the body of citizens...but it's a dangerous and short-sighted interpretation to promote, and no good can come of it. Some conservatives like to promote the essentially pro-government interpretation here because they believe allowing the government carte blanche over "others" won't apply to them, but here I think they're letting their sense of birthright superiority get the better of them (much like Roman citizens who thought crucifixion was okay for non-citizens). Not only is this "American privilege" interpretation inconsistent with a philosophical view that rights come from God (or as a function of "reciprocity by default"), but it fails to appreciate the way that government redefines things as it pleases:

The government picks and chooses what parts of the Constitution to follow, and they will happily accept a "citizens only" interpretation in combination with an unconstitutional power to strip citizenship from whomever they please at their whim. We should NOT aid them in this by handing them half of this deadly combination on a silver platter. This is very similar to when conservatives nod their heads and support "keeping guns from people with mental illness." After all, WE'RE not crazy, so it doesn't apply to us, right? Meanwhile, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and the left hand is diagnosing things like ordinary grief as a mental illness (and trying to diagnose "mistrust" of government as a mental illness as well, etc.).

All that said: Constitutionally speaking, enumerated powers technically still protect against the government registering, tracking, banning, or confiscating any guns whatsoever, or placing any restrictions on their manufacture and sale...except after trying and convicting someone of a crime and handing down a specific sentence that bars them from owning weapons. My interpretation would make liberals' heads explode, but I believe the Second Amendment's wording still prevents them from handing down such a sentence directly (to anyone covered by the Second, depending on your interpretation of "the People" ), and the Eighth Amendment prevents handing down a disproportionate prison term to strong-arm people into waiving their Second Amendment rights as a condition of release. As a result, even convicted felons have Second Amendment rights according to the Constitution itself. The ONLY way for the government to Constitutionally prevent someone's access to arms is to keep them locked up, and the Eighth adds a [subjective but real] limit to the extent to which they can do so for each crime.

Similarly, even if the Fourth Amendment only applied to citizens, the federal government in particular can only conduct any searches whatsoever in accordance with the "necessary and proper" clause allowing them empower the executive with the tools to enforce Constitutional laws. Therefore, even IF we applied the Fourth Amendment only to citizens, non-citizens could still only be searched by the federal government in particular under suspicion of breaking a particular Constitutional law that applies to them...of which there very few, because the Constitution doesn't give the US government the power to deal in criminal law. The Fourth and Second (among others) also appear to apply to the states, even before the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine, but they can make laws in accordance with their own Constitutions, so if the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect non-citizens, they're pretty much at the mercy of state governments. (Once again though, I believe "citizens" is an incorrect [and counterproductive] interpretation of "the People" anyway.)

In closing, here's The Judge on the matter:

The Constitution applies to persons, not just citizens. If you read the Constitution, its protections are not limited to Americans. And that was written intentionally, because at the time it was written, they didn't know what Native Americans would be. When the post civil war amendments were added, they didn't know how blacks would be considered, because they had a decision of the Supreme Court called Dred Scott, that said blacks are not persons. So in order to make sure the Constitution protected every human being: American, alien; citizen, non-citizen; lawful combatant, enemy combatant; innocent, guilty; those who wish us well, those who wish us ill...they use the broadest possible language, to make it clear: Wherever the government goes, the Constitution goes, and wherever the Constitution goes, the protections that it guarantees restrain the government and requires it to protect those rights.

[osan]

With the recent events at Gitmo, the argument whether the constitutional rights are applied to people or solely US citizens is resurfacing. Does the constitution protect all people from unjust punishments/acts of force? if not, wouldn't Gitmo still be unconstitutional because even though some may regard the prisoners as POWs, there was never a constitutional declaration of war.

If the Constitution recognizes and guarantees inherent human rights, then all people have them regardless of citizenship. Otherwise, our rights are granted and as such it follows that someone, somewhere is doing the granting, further meaning they may withhold the grant. This opens an enormous can of worms.

"Inherent and equally held human rights" means everyone, everywhere, at all times; no exceptions.