Bill of Rights should apply to illegal immigrants, terror suspects, and detainees... - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bill of Rights should apply to illegal immigrants, terror suspects, and detainees... (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:43:48 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nationwide, that is the Declaration of Independence not the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES. If people want to use it to "declare independence" use it but your comparing apples to oranges. The founding fathers basically used that to tell England this is why then drafted the constitution to say these are our laws. How is this hard to understand.

So you are saying one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents?

one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents, any more than your car registration applies to your mortgage documents.

Different documents, Different purposes. I guess you have been badly misinformed for a long time.

The Declaration is a Declaration (Justification) for war. Thats it.

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:46:12 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
While God creates all men as free men, men can do certain things that cause them to lose their freedom.

If a man commits murder, he will be arrested and placed in a cell and maybe even be executed for his crime. His "rights" have obviously been removed by society, as a punishment for a crime against society.

Those mentioned in your title are "criminals" and have properly had their rights revoked by society.

Thanks O_P you said exactly what I was thinking.

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:47:26 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fuck that shit. All men who are US citizens. The rest are invaders or guests. Guests get a fair trial under civilian law. Anyone seized upon the battle field and is a soldier is governed by military law. Anyone that is a spy or non-military combatant seized on the battle field should be shot on sight once their status is verified.

It is the Constitution of the United States. Not the Constitution of the Whole World.

"ALL MEN"

Not American men. Not patriots. Not colonials.

"ALL MEN"

So we can invade countries where these rights are being violated in order to restore said rights to the people?
Cuts both ways.

The argument could be made (and has been by Jorge Bushe), that the moral authority exists. Not sure about legal authority (that's a different subject).

The LEGAL authority came from 12 years of violation of the UN-mandated cease fire accords and disarmament agreements.

Are you that stubborn?

No, I was trying to avoid the discussion all together as that is not the subject of this thread.

Are you that stupid?

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:49:39 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nationwide, that is the Declaration of Independence not the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES. If people want to use it to "declare independence" use it but your comparing apples to oranges. The founding fathers basically used that to tell England this is why then drafted the constitution to say these are our laws. How is this hard to understand.

So you are saying one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents?

one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents, any more than your car registration applies to your mortgage documents.

Different documents, Different purposes. I guess you have been badly misinformed for a long time.

The Declaration is a Declaration (Justification) for war. Thats it.

So then my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is only protected from King George?

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:51:10 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution, and BOR is a contract between "We the People, the Government, and "our Posterity".

The Declaration explains the ideals that our Nation is based on, the Constitution is the law of the land.

I honestly don't understand the confusion.

Then why does the document not say "All United States Citizens"?

What part of We the People of the United States do you not understand?

You are trying to make a very simple concept, complicated. It says what it says.

Seriously, this is getting worse than the Airplane/treadmill thread.

If it helps, ask yourself this: Are we ethically obligated to enforce the civil rights of foreign citizens around the world? No? Why not?

Because they are not subject to our laws (Constitution).

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:54:41 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution, and BOR is a contract between "We the People, the Government, and "our Posterity".

The Declaration explains the ideals that our Nation is based on, the Constitution is the law of the land.

I honestly don't understand the confusion.

Then why does the document not say "All United States Citizens"?

What part of We the People of the United States do you not understand?

You are trying to make a very simple concept, complicated. It says what it says.

Seriously, this is getting worse than the Airplane/treadmill thread.

If it helps, ask yourself this: Are we ethically obligated to enforce the civil rights of foreign citizens around the world? No? Why not?

Because they are not subject to our laws (Constitution).

You need to read it as a whole not in talking points that fuel uneducated opinions. Well put BOR

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:55:42 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution, and BOR is a contract between "We the People, the Government, and "our Posterity".

The Declaration explains the ideals that our Nation is based on, the Constitution is the law of the land.

I honestly don't understand the confusion.

Then why does the document not say "All United States Citizens"?

What part of We the People of the United States do you not understand?

You are trying to make a very simple concept, complicated. It says what it says.

Seriously, this is getting worse than the Airplane/treadmill thread.

If it helps, ask yourself this: Are we ethically obligated to enforce the civil rights of foreign citizens around the world? No? Why not?

Because they are not subject to our laws (Constitution).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menwhich "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 Only the USA? are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government ANY? I thought it's just the USA??becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:58:32 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nationwide, that is the Declaration of Independence not the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNTIED STATES. If people want to use it to "declare independence" use it but your comparing apples to oranges. The founding fathers basically used that to tell England this is why then drafted the constitution to say these are our laws. How is this hard to understand.

So you are saying one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents?

one part of our Founding Documents does not apply to other parts of our founding documents, any more than your car registration applies to your mortgage documents.

Different documents, Different purposes. I guess you have been badly misinformed for a long time.

The Declaration is a Declaration (Justification) for war. Thats it.

So then my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is only protected from King George?

The Declaration was made to the world. It means "We are willing to fight for our rights"

It doesn't mean that we will fight for anyones rights, any where in the world.

(That statement was made later by Kennedy in a moment of Cold War bravado)

Posted: 2/10/2008 1:59:02 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You should only have those rights removed after due process or law, i.e., a fair and open trial, and a jury of their peers - to name a couple criteria.

ETA: Clarification.

Exactly.

So someone who is awaiting trial for rape or murder should still have the liberty to come and go as he pleases and possess firearms?

Gotta disagree with you on that one. If they're exonerated, full restoration is in order. Until then they're on hold. I'm not saying they are guilty until proven innocent but I don't think they should be walking around free and armed while we wait for the trial.

Posted: 2/10/2008 2:02:24 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You should only have those rights removed after due process or law, i.e., a fair and open trial, and a jury of their peers - to name a couple criteria.

ETA: Clarification.

Exactly.

So someone who is awaiting trial for rape or murder should still have the liberty to come and go as he pleases and possess firearms?

Gotta disagree with you on that one. If they're exonerated, full restoration is in order. Until then they're on hold. I'm not saying they are guilty until proven innocent but I don't think they should be walking around free and armed while we wait for the trial.

Thats where the bail hearing comes into play. The judge decides given the circumstances how much freedom is alloted to the charged.

Posted: 2/10/2008 2:07:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
While God creates all men as free men, men can do certain things that cause them to lose their freedom.

If a man committs murder, he will be arrested and placed in a cell and maybe even be executed for his crime. His "rights" have obviously been removed by society, as a punishment for a crime against society.

Those mentioned in your title are "criminals" and have properly had their rights revoked by society.

O_P, I have to respectfully disagree with the principle here.

There are certain crimes that deserve the DEPRIVATION of rights. But inalienable rights remain, whether or not one is deprived of them.

I have the right to defend myself. If going 5 mph over the speed limit were punishable by life in prison and I was convicted of such, that doesn't mean that I no longer have the right to defend myself. It means that society has chosen to DEPRIVE me of the excercise of that right. But, the right still exists.

For example, if guns were banned entirely, would you agree that society had "revoked" your right to bear arms? They may deprive you of it through superior force, but they can never "revoke" it. You will always have the right. The fact that the majority of society chooses not to recognize it is irrelevant.

Posted: 2/10/2008 2:19:05 PM EDT

[#12]

Either way if they apply or not these groups of people have BROKEN OUR LAWS and should be held accountable for their crimes, the blade cuts both ways ya know.

Posted: 2/10/2008 3:35:05 PM EDT

[#13]

Nationwide, I posted above with the actual explanation from a political theory point of view. Do you agree with my explanation?

Posted: 2/10/2008 3:37:39 PM EDT

[#14]

NO. i was born here son there should be benefits!

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:01:09 PM EDT

[#15]

The Preamble says "We the people of the United States of America..."

I thought this was pretty self-explanatory.

B_S

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:03:29 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
While God creates all men as free men, men can do certain things that cause them to lose their freedom.

If a man commits murder, he will be arrested and placed in a cell and maybe even be executed for his crime. His "rights" have obviously been removed by society, as a punishment for a crime against society.

Those mentioned in your title are "criminals" and have properly had their rights revoked by society.

O_P, I have to respectfully disagree with the principle here.

There are certain crimes that deserve the DEPRIVATION of rights. But inalienable rights remain, whether or not one is deprived of them.

I have the right to defend myself. If going 5 mph over the speed limit were punishable by life in prison and I was convicted of such, that doesn't mean that I no longer have the right to defend myself. It means that society has chosen to DEPRIVE me of the excercise of that right. But, the right still exists.

For example, if guns were banned entirely, would you agree that society had "revoked" your right to bear arms? They may deprive you of it through superior force, but they can never "revoke" it. You will always have the right. The fact that the majority of society chooses not to recognize it is irrelevant.

As noted earlier in the thread, I think we are in agreement. Semantics, not disagreement.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:08:58 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
One of the most basic principals of Locke's concept of the social contract is that only those who submit to the Social Contract are protected by it. Yes, all people are created equal and have equal rights--they however do not have equal protections. I submit to the authority of our government granted it by the Constitution and am thereby protected by said government. An illegal immigrant, terrorist, etc., does not submit and is therefore not protected. In effect, they are not parties to the contractual agreement between we the people and the government we created.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's interesting.

Have to admit, your entire concept never entered into my mind until now.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:14:07 PM EDT

[#18]

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.

There are no rights granted in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution in general. What they do is define and limit the role of the federal government.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:18:33 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
One of the most basic principals of Locke's concept of the social contract is that only those who submit to the Social Contract are protected by it. Yes, all people are created equal and have equal rights--they however do not have equal protections. I submit to the authority of our government granted it by the Constitution and am thereby protected by said government. An illegal immigrant, terrorist, etc., does not submit and is therefore not protected. In effect, they are not parties to the contractual agreement between we the people and the government we created.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's interesting.

Have to admit, your entire concept never entered into my mind until now.

Locke is the man.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:18:53 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are going to play devils advocate, you need to try harder. You have to make some connection between the Declaration and the BOR.

afaik, the former is a general statement explaining the need for forming a new nation.

The latter lays out the rules to be followed by citizens of that new land.

Not the same.

IMHO, the BOR should only apply to citizens. Being a Citizen should MEAN something.

"All men are created equal"

The BoR enumerates specific rights endowed upon man by his creator.

Therefore, ALL men have specific rights endowed upon them by their creator.

Go back to school and give your history teacher a nice solid FAIL. The Declaration of Independence explains why the Colonies were splitting from the Crown in England. It did not codify any law and it certainly did not bestow anything upon anybody other than an explanation to the Crown of why the Colonies were leaving his tender loving care.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:29:42 PM EDT

[#21]

The BOR (specifically) and Constitution (originally) enumerated rights..it didn't grant them.

So yeah..I think terror suspects should be entitled to the same due process your average child molester is..but I think its perfectly ok to restrict the rights of both of them..up to and including executing them after a fair trial.

Is it a pain in the ass? Sure. But better than the alternative.

Either we believe the rights in the BOR are inalienable (yes, I know the term was used in the DOI instead) or we don't. If they are, then they apply to everyone. If they don't, our Constitution is a "living document" and subject to change.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:44:21 PM EDT

[#22]

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of ideology, written by the chief philosophers of the revolution.
The BoR and the Constitution were written as a compromise between delegates of all 13 states, and many compromises were made---one of them being the compromise that allowed slavery, DESPITE the statement in the DoI that "all men were created equal."
Of course, these would be pesky little things called "facts" that some people here never allow to get inbetween them and a good rant.

Posted: 2/10/2008 4:55:54 PM EDT

[#23]

So..you have no inherent right to self defense, right?

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:10:42 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you are going to play devils advocate, you need to try harder. You have to make some connection between the Declaration and the BOR.

afaik, the former is a general statement explaining the need for forming a new nation.

The latter lays out the rules to be followed by citizens of that new land.

Not the same.

IMHO, the BOR should only apply to citizens. Being a Citizen should MEAN something.

"All men are created equal"

The BoR enumerates specific rights endowed upon man by his creator.

Therefore, ALL men have specific rights endowed upon them by their creator.

Go back to school and give your history teacher a nice solid FAIL. The Declaration of Independence explains why the Colonies were splitting from the Crown in England. It did not codify any law and it certainly did not bestow anything upon anybody other than an explanation to the Crown of why the Colonies were leaving his tender loving care.

The Declaration of Independence does not "explain" anything. It's a DECLARATION, not an explanation.

It does not codify, it recognizes that natural rights of all men.

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:13:50 PM EDT

[#25]

I agree.

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:14:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
While God creates all men as free men, men can do certain things that cause them to lose their freedom.

If a man committs murder, he will be arrested and placed in a cell and maybe even be executed for his crime. His "rights" have obviously been removed by society, as a punishment for a crime against society.

Those mentioned in your title are "criminals" and have properly had their rights revoked by society.

The US has released several terror detainees from Guantanamo Bay who had been detained for extended periods of time (years in some cases) without trial. Those released were eventually determined to have no involvement with terrorism. I would not call that a proper method for revoking someone's rights.

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:19:04 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You should only have those rights removed after due process or law, i.e., a fair and open trial, and a jury of their peers - to name a couple criteria.

ETA: Clarification.

Exactly.

So someone who is awaiting trial for rape or murder should still have the liberty to come and go as he pleases and possess firearms?

Gotta disagree with you on that one. If they're exonerated, full restoration is in order. Until then they're on hold. I'm not saying they are guilty until proven innocent but I don't think they should be walking around free and armed while we wait for the trial.

Someone who is awaiting trial for rape or murder has been formally charged by the police, evidence has been presented to a grand jury allowing the charges to proceed and the accused has appeared before a judge at least once where both the prosecution and defense made their case for either release on bond or remand.

Some people that the US government is currently detaining have been plucked up, flown to Cuba and thrown into a pen without any hope of any legal proceedings.

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:19:11 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Those people in Gitmo should be treated like POWs --> kept in prison until the war is over.

They could have been shot as spies.

Posted: 2/10/2008 5:31:29 PM EDT

[#29]

It doesn't mention women.

And back then, we didn't have any form of immigration system. If you made it to shore, you
were in. It was pretty much that simple.

I believe that BASIC rights should apply to EVERYONE. Even those who are here illegally.

But those basic rights should be pretty limited. The right not to be shot while being rounded up and deported, except if they're resisting. The right to stay (pick their skin color) and die. The right to be held without trial.

Hey, they're CRIMINALS. Criminals who don't even belong here. What do you THINK
I'd want? To kiss them??

At the next level, lawful visitors to the US should have greater rights. They get a right to
trial by jury, right to hold a job, etc. They can have guns after passing an international
background investigation.

Next higher level: Lawful immigrants who are pursuing full citizenship. They get everything
except the right to hold public office.

Only full citizens get the whole ball of wax including the right to hold public office if elected or appointed.

That's how I'd do it.

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:26:09 PM EDT

[#30]

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?

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:48:09 PM EDT

[#31]

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?

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:55:34 PM EDT

[#32]

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".

But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:57:21 PM EDT

[#33]

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.

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:59:24 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Posted: 2/10/2008 6:59:41 PM EDT

[#35]

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.

So the Declaration of Independence had no compromise in it with regard to wording, beliefs, or grievances?

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:00:34 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Slaves were held under permission of the law

Sometimes there was nothing wrong with that. Who ever really had a problem with indentured servants?

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:00:50 PM EDT

[#37]

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.

The only compromise regarding slavery had to do with whether slaves should be counted for apportionment.

The slave TRADE was constitutionally protected until 1808. At which time, Congress immediately banned it.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:03:20 PM EDT

[#38]

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.

So the Declaration of Independence had no compromise in it with regard to wording, beliefs, or grievances?

Not really, other than the concession to change John Locke's original words "life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Not nearly as much compromise as the Constitution, which took weeks to iron out.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:04:10 PM EDT

[#39]

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.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:05:55 PM EDT

[#40]

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.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:06:50 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Slaves were held under permission of the law

Sometimes there was nothing wrong with that. Who ever really had a problem with indentured servants?

Do you understand what 'due process' means?

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:08:07 PM EDT

[#42]

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.

So the Declaration of Independence had no compromise in it with regard to wording, beliefs, or grievances?

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson alone and adopted by the Continental Congress with very few modifications as I understand it. The DoI outlines the basic beliefs and values pertinent to American governance, but it is not the law of the land. The US has had three governments since the DoI. There was the Continental Congress which managed the war for Independence, there was the government under the Articles of Confederation and there was the current government.

It is also noteworthy, as always, that the man who himself penned the words "all men are created equal" was a southern slave owner.

ETA - However, as it pertains to the original argument, the original argument:

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.

and

Amendment VI

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 defense.

The constitution makes no distinction between citizen and non-citizen.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:08:33 PM EDT

[#43]

Forget that noise.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:11:33 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Slaves were held under permission of the law

Sometimes there was nothing wrong with that. Who ever really had a problem with indentured servants?

Do you understand what 'due process' means?

Allowing people to be held against their will as property is the same as stripping people of certain rights after being convicted of an offense deemed a felony by society.

In both cases, people are being deprived of their liberty, because the society as a whole, has decided that something else is more important, be it perceived property rights of a slave owner, or the perceived safety of the community. I equate the two, because there are a great deal more offenses classified as Felonies then there were 50 years ago, and it is not safer out there because of this.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:12:55 PM EDT

[#45]

The BoR does apply in varying degrees to all persons in the United States until such time it becomes apparent that is is no longer applicable. And should be assumed to be applicable until it becomes definite that it doesn't.

If you don't believe that explain why -

For example, Should we say No Free Speech until we determine you are a citizen or legal alien? Should we allow illegal search and seizure until we determine you are a citizen or legal alien? Should we automatically you have no right to keep and bear arms until we determine otherwise? Should we allow massive dragnets and intrusive searches until we later determine in court you are a citizen?

Or do we do like is done now, apply those rights until determined they are not applicable?

I think we can all agree, which is the proper method, or is there one or more classes of people you want to withhold rights from on appearance>

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:15:07 PM EDT

[#46]

At the time that meant "all white land owning males".

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:15:15 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Slaves were held under permission of the law

Sometimes there was nothing wrong with that. Who ever really had a problem with indentured servants?

Do you understand what 'due process' means?

Allowing people to be held against their will as property is the same as stripping people of certain rights after being convicted of an offense deemed a felony by society.

In both cases, people are being deprived of their liberty, because the society as a whole, has decided that something else is more important, be it perceived property rights of a slave owner, or the perceived safety of the community. I equate the two, because there are a great deal more offenses classified as Felonies then there were 50 years ago, and it is not safer out there because of this.

I'll take that as a "no" to a yes or no question.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:15:59 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But the same thing applies today, with people whom society deems "felons". They are stripped of some rights, and therefore not "equal" under the law.

They were stripped of their rights after due process of law. Nothing wrong about it.

Slaves were held under permission of the law

Sometimes there was nothing wrong with that. Who ever really had a problem with indentured servants?

Do you understand what 'due process' means?

Allowing people to be held against their will as property is the same as stripping people of certain rights after being convicted of an offense deemed a felony by society.

In both cases, people are being deprived of their liberty, because the society as a whole, has decided that something else is more important, be it perceived property rights of a slave owner, or the perceived safety of the community. I equate the two, because there are a great deal more offenses classified as Felonies then there were 50 years ago, and it is not safer out there because of this.

Murders, assaults and battery, rape, and on and on are deemed felonies by society? Thats funny, I always thought a lot of felonies were mala en se, and felonies no matter what.

I have no problem with society stripping someone of some of their rights after committing a felony and being adjudicated by a jury of their peers in a fair and open court. There is a world of difference between that and holding another human being in bondage on the basis of the color of their skin.

Your dog doesn't want to hunt.

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:18:10 PM EDT

[#49]

Uhhhhhh, re-read line 2.
The End

Posted: 2/10/2008 7:21:35 PM EDT

[#50]

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bill of Rights should apply to illegal immigrants, terror suspects, and detainees... (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us