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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by H.Akston

Bob Barr just said on Sam and Cokie's show that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution covers "persons", not just citizens, and "the Bill of Rights applies to all persons on our soil."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: billofrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-714 next last
That's about the most liberal thing I've ever heard. Doesn't he realize that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution clearly identifies who is covered by the words "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES", and that not everyone on this soil is "OF THE UNITED STATES"?

With Rights come responsibilities - does he want to extend American rights to people who don't pay American taxes?? American Privileges without American Responsibilities, MR. BARR? Representation from you without Taxation?

I'm not even sure that Indians are covered by the Bill of Rights, unless it's specifically stated so in some bilateral treaty.

1 posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:02 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
No, don't tell me I'm a moron - tell me why I'm wrong, if you can.
4 posted on 12/02/2001 8:53:26 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Sometimes Bob's fear of government clouds his thoughts...
5 posted on 12/02/2001 8:53:49 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
If the Bill or Rights applies to everyone then why do we have INS raids?
7 posted on 12/02/2001 8:55:10 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
You really agree that Bob Barr is wrong.
8 posted on 12/02/2001 8:55:55 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
If you think INS raids are not a violation of the Bill or Rights then you have no problem with the INS raiding your home. Correct?
11 posted on 12/02/2001 8:57:44 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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

Um ... because the INS believes people are in the country illegally? Kinda like asking "If the Bill of Rights applies to everyone then why do we have police raids?" isn't it?

12 posted on 12/02/2001 8:57:52 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
If you really think I'm wrong, then you think that the Constitution starts off with "We The People of the World..."
13 posted on 12/02/2001 8:58:15 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: H.Akston
We the people of the United States are the citizens of the United States - no one else. Our constitution covers us only. It does not cover Canadian citizens, French citizens, Mexican citizens, etc. They have their own constitutions that they base their laws on. Our constitution does not dictate laws to the whole world.
15 posted on 12/02/2001 9:00:43 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
If you really think I'm wrong, then you think that the Constitution starts off with "We The People of the World..."

Sorry. This strikes me as a non-sequitur. Of course the people of the United States set up the country, but everyone in it has the same rights. I believe we should be flagging the FReeper lawyers on this, but the laws of the nation apply to everyone who is here, whether that person is a citizen or not.

That having been said, people acting as agents of a foreign power during time of war are and should be an exception. (If that's where this is headed).

16 posted on 12/02/2001 9:01:53 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
"The INS cannot raid my home without probable cause and a warrant."

That's because you (unfortunately) are one of the "People, of the United States", and not of Afghanistan, and thus are covered by the Constitution, unlike an Al-Queda network cells who have infiltrated this country, or are on an expired visa.

18 posted on 12/02/2001 9:03:41 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: H.Akston
You seem to be suggesting that our unalienable rights are given to us by the Constitution.

Or is it that it's ok to infringe upon the rights of innocent people, as long as they're not citizens?

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with either premise.

20 posted on 12/02/2001 9:05:28 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
Barr didn't give any reasons. He just blurted it out, much like your ejaculations herein.
21 posted on 12/02/2001 9:05:41 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: tex-oma
if everyone here has protection of the Bill of Rights then illegals have the same rights as you. either they cannot be raided or you can.
23 posted on 12/02/2001 9:07:07 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: abclily; tex-oma
It isn't that simple. How can it be, otherwise, that Jewish groups (as an example) can take German (as an example) companies to court in America to demand repayments of their money?
24 posted on 12/02/2001 9:07:37 AM PST by NewAmsterdam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
No they're not "given to us by the Constitution", but the Constitution is OUR device for protecting them. It's not a Frenchman's device, or an Al-Queda terrorists device, whether or not he's physically in America.
25 posted on 12/02/2001 9:07:53 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: abclily
I agree with you.

THE UNITED STATES 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 defence, 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.

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

26 posted on 12/02/2001 9:08:46 AM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Police murder citizens in police raids. That's clearly a violation of the Bill or Rights.
27 posted on 12/02/2001 9:09:03 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: MadameAxe
If a foreign person requests asylum and it is granted, then he's covered. But that has to happen. If we don't grant it, they don't get that protection. Barr made a blanket statement that could have applied to Al-Quadas in this country, who haven't requested asylum. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.
30 posted on 12/02/2001 9:11:51 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Bless you.
31 posted on 12/02/2001 9:12:19 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
I usually agree with Bob Barr, but in this case I feel he made a serious blooper.
32 posted on 12/02/2001 9:12:32 AM PST by proudofthesouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
Lol, I know. But if you proclaim the belief that individuals have unalienable rights, which means it seems to me, that they are inherent, i.e. they cannot be granted by anyone nor taken away, then, surely that goes for each and every human being. After all, your constitution is a product of the Enlightenment which made claims on universality.
33 posted on 12/02/2001 9:15:42 AM PST by NewAmsterdam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
that's a neat little trick. do you understand logical thought? if, then, else? i thought not.

i suppose now you'll tell us you have no problem with Osama's boys exercising their 'rights' under the second amendment. They can walk into a gun shop, go through the background check, and walk out with a gun and head straight to the airplane with your husband and kids on it.

34 posted on 12/02/2001 9:16:12 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
The first ten amendments say what they say. Look at the text of each -- e.g.

Third -- "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house" [Not, "in the house of any citizen"]

Fifth -- "No person shall be held to answer for a . . . crime [except by indictment, etc.]" [not "no citizen . . . ."].

Some amendments are limited to citizens: Fifteenth -- "The right of citizens . . . to vote shall not be denied [on account of race]."

Read the text of each, and you'll see who they apply to.

35 posted on 12/02/2001 9:17:44 AM PST by BohDaThone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
And you have no problem with non-citizens voting...
36 posted on 12/02/2001 9:17:56 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: go star go
Police murder citizens in police raids. That's clearly a violation of the Bill or Rights.

Always, in every raid? As a matter of policy?

37 posted on 12/02/2001 9:19:05 AM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: H.Akston
You are both wrong.

The Bill of Rights does not grant anybody anything. Our founders believed that rights were inherent and existed independent of the government. Both the Constitution and the BoR embody this philosophy. The BoR is the short list of rights the government cannot legally infringe. The BoR is not a grant of privilege to the "people" but a set of restrictions on the power of the State. It says things like, "Congress shall make no law" and, "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime: It applies to the government not the 'people'.

39 posted on 12/02/2001 9:21:00 AM PST by athiestwithagun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
It's a matter of policy if you have a gun, have committed no crime, and use your gun to defend your home from what you perceive to be home invaders.
40 posted on 12/02/2001 9:21:04 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; H.Akston
...but everyone in it has the same rights.

No, they don't. Our Constitution is for the CITIZENS of this country who have extended SOME of their rights to those who are here visiting. Just look into the INS, if you don't believe me.

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

If you break any of our laws, you are subject to deportation, although the judge can choose not to enforce that.

Those are just two of the "rights" you do not have if you are not a citizen. I'm sure there are others, but those two stand out as areas where alians are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

41 posted on 12/02/2001 9:21:08 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth
I do too. I think he might be one of those radical republicans in conservative clothing.
42 posted on 12/02/2001 9:21:53 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Headlong
I certainly hope you are not so blinded by your intellect that you trust government with anything other than national defense. Think for yourself sometimes.
43 posted on 12/02/2001 9:22:38 AM PST by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Barr didn't make any exceptions.
44 posted on 12/02/2001 9:23:03 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The Bill of Rights describes a few things the U.S. Government cannot do.

As such, it covers the U.S. Government.

Does it preclude the U.S. Government from violating the rights listed therein of, say, foreigners in foreign lands? Uh, only if you think things like "wars", which are organized government efforts to kill foreigners, are unconstitutional (for violating those foreigners' right to life, as mentioned in the 5th Amendment). Which would be odd, to say the least, since the Constitution specifically describes how to declare war.

45 posted on 12/02/2001 9:23:39 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
Ok Tex, so the Constitution applies to all who are on our soil? So this means that if there is an invasion by say, Red China, we can't just shoot people in the uniform of Red China on sight, we have to call a cop to arrest them?

In WWII Japan took over one of the AK islands, should the invading solders have been accorded all the rights of citizens?

And Tex, why should we stop at enemies of our nation being granted the rights of citzens only if they are on our soil? Shouldn't we have granted the Jap Air Force the rights of citizens while they were over our soil on Dec 7, 1941?

And you have the gaul to call HA a moron?

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

46 posted on 12/02/2001 9:23:49 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: athiestwithagun
I refer to my post 33. Was I correct (I am not American, so wasn't sure) in my assumptions?
47 posted on 12/02/2001 9:24:36 AM PST by NewAmsterdam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Well, if the Bill of Rights is, as I believe, an enumeration of our natural rights then, philosophically, they do apply to everyone. That is not to say that we mustn't apprehend and prosecute those who would themselves violate rights, such as the Al Queda terrorists. Of course we should.
48 posted on 12/02/2001 9:25:03 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
You seem to be suggesting that our unalienable rights are given to us by the Constitution

That must be true because I don't have those rights as an American in another country, do I?

49 posted on 12/02/2001 9:25:32 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BohDaThone
"Read the text of each, and you'll see who they apply to" Read the Text of the FIRST 7 WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, to see who the Constitution, and everything in it, applies to.
50 posted on 12/02/2001 9:26:48 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-714 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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