Quoted: The Constitution does not apply outside the United States. The Bill of Rights does not apply outside the United States. The Declaration of Independence does not apply outside the United States. Anyone being held outside the U.S. is also outside of U.S. law, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, using the same logic, you are arguing that Russian or Chinese(or whatever country you want to insert here) law applies here exactly as it does in Russia or China. Sorry, but that logic equals fail.

ORLY?

How about our friends in Guantanamo?  How about prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quoted: The Constitution does not apply outside the United States. The Bill of Rights does not apply outside the United States. The Declaration of Independence does not apply outside the United States. Anyone being held outside the U.S. is also outside of U.S. law, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, using the same logic, you are arguing that Russian or Chinese(or whatever country you want to insert here) law applies here exactly as it does in Russia or China. Sorry, but that logic equals fail.

Well that's just by definition wrong.

A restraint on the government should be a restraint on the government...no matter who its dealing with or where its dealing with them.

Well, if rights come to all men from the creator and NOT from governments, then remind me why we are letting the government of DC disarm their subjects again?

Or why, if all people have rights to life from God and not government, we allow one group of people to kill another group of people without due process (abortion, IVF, cloning)?

fact is, there is a difference between 'inalienable' rights - owed to ALL PEOPLE - irrespective of their nationality and government (called "human rights") and "civil rights" which are not OWED to people qua people but only qua "citizens" or those within the outlines of the positive legal system.

For example, it's a human right to peacefully assemble. But one can't just assembled ANYWHERE, i.e in someone elses' land, house, etc. because other people have rights too, and civil laws can and do hold the line on what is acceptible and what is not.

It's understood that all people have the right to freedom and security (obtained by tools of self-defense, guns), but that human right does not transfer into a human right without qualification. A murderer or robber foreits the right to be 'free' and thus his right to weapons.

But at least in our American Revolution concept, felons are still considered human beings and can be restored to their full rights eventually. In other systems they lose all rights, human and civil.

Justice is a universal - so whatever political theory or system best serves the demands of justice for all will appeal to the most.

What Marxist/socialist/democrat operatives have managed to do is shift the goal posts and pump grievances between the so-called oppressed vs. the rich or white, or men, or adults, or responsible, making law a matter of 'leveling'/taking from them and giving to the others bloodlessly all while threatening bloodshed if their demands are not met. There's no theory of universal rights owed to people qua people but only owed them as groups of oppressed victims.

When they happen to be the majority then suddenly "the will of the people" must be obeyed. When their goal is unpopular, suddenly "the courts must uphold the constitution against mob rule" until such time stare decisis is no longer important.

For example, affirmative action. The people of CA voted in prop 209 and it got overturned by a court. People's will and the letter of the law be damned.

Oregon passes a suicide bill and "the people's will must be respected" even though the Constitution does not allow for people to be deprived of life without due process, including one's own life. One's right to life does not include the right to kill oneself.

But that would make sense, so the people's will stands sacrosanct.

Stare Decisis is vital...until it's not. So when the court rules against Sodomy, it's OK to junk that ruling less than a decade later. But if the court rules over 50 state laws and 250 years of legislative tradition that abortion is somewhere implicit in the Constitution, suddenly that ruling must never be challenged. ever.

There is no logic in this but there is power.

Seriously guys, pulling your own personal concept of how the Constitution and its protections apply out of you rear-ends is not in any way meaningful.  It means absolutely nothing.  Instead, educate yourselves with some Locke.

www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/

Quoted: Quoted: The Constitution does not apply outside the United States. The Bill of Rights does not apply outside the United States. The Declaration of Independence does not apply outside the United States. Anyone being held outside the U.S. is also outside of U.S. law, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, using the same logic, you are arguing that Russian or Chinese(or whatever country you want to insert here) law applies here exactly as it does in Russia or China. Sorry, but that logic equals fail. Well that's just by definition wrong.

So, lets say you take the DoI to china. Is china automatically free and also the United States? Nope.

Freedom can only be revoked by due process of law.  In the case of illegal immigrants they have broken the law so they cannot expect legal equivalence to a law-abiding citizen.  In the case of "detainees" and "suspects" they need to be convicted/charged with something before they can just be deprived of liberty.  In the case of POWs and other war-related detentions we should follow the applicable laws and treaties.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Constitution does not apply outside the United States. The Bill of Rights does not apply outside the United States. The Declaration of Independence does not apply outside the United States. Anyone being held outside the U.S. is also outside of U.S. law, exactly as it should be. Otherwise, using the same logic, you are arguing that Russian or Chinese(or whatever country you want to insert here) law applies here exactly as it does in Russia or China. Sorry, but that logic equals fail. Well that's just by definition wrong. So, lets say you take the DoI to china. Is china automatically free and also the United States? Nope.

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of universal belief regarding the state of man.  Do the specific grievances against the King apply to China?  No.  Obviously.  Of course, they don't apply to Florida either.  The Declaration states that those people SHOULD be free.  That they aren't is their own fault as it is the duty of the people to fight for freedom and sacred liberty.

Our Creator gave us our rights and government should protect those rights.  If government fails to do so, we have to fix that.  We did a few times.  The Chinese simply did not.  But you better believe the Declaration applies to them as it does to us.

Quoted: Freedom can only be revoked by due process of law.  In the case of illegal immigrants they have broken the law so they cannot expect legal equivalence to a law-abiding citizen.  In the case of "detainees" and "suspects" they need to be convicted/charged with something before they can just be deprived of liberty.  In the case of POWs and other war-related detentions we should follow the applicable laws and treaties.

Precedent absolutely disagrees with you as do the applicable treaties.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  What irks me to no end is how the administration talks of bringing "democracy" to places like Iraq when most of the folks in official capacities have taken an oath to uphold a constitutional republic.   If all people are truly equal, why does our government deny due process to foreign nationals?   Because the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land.  If all men were considered equal after July 4, 1776, why did we still have slavery until 1865? Because slaves were errantly not considered "men". By whom?  Many, many Americans considered them men.  Yet they allowed slavery anyway in the Constitution, because it was a compromise, NOT an ideological document of belief as the DoI was.  Therefore your DoI argument is nonsensical and inapplicable. Slavery wasn't "allowed" by the Constitution.  The Constitution just didn't speak on it. And this was a compromise.  If you don't know about the compromises at the constitutional convention that allowed slavery, you need to read up on your history. I know the history just fine.  NO ONE at the constitutional convention was advocating a ban on slavery.  I think maybe you're the one that is confused.

No, that would still be you.

Edit- Sorry, wrong subject.  

Quoted: I think is funny that people say that the rights guaranteed in the BoR are "granted by God" etc. and then say they should only apply to American citizens.

Regarding immigration, yep, mankind's rights are "endowed by their creator", and for those not lucky enough to be born in a free society that recognizes that fact, they can still emigrate to one and become a legal citizen. They can then become productive citizens and contribute to that society according to their own dreams, abilities, and ambitions, and if necessary, call upon that society for help in time of need.
Those who are illegally living among legitimate members of that society contribute little or nothing to it and are unjustly draining it's resources, weakening it from within. While our society cannot deprive them of their natural rights as human beings, it also cannot be obliged to support them by means of it's own citizen's taxation while they continue to provide nothing in return.