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."
"His pitiful rush to attack" - now I know what AJ stands for: Atta's Jihad
I'll never mess with Texas :)
The Northern Alliance has some Autonomous groups, but among them is the "Official Government of Afghanistan". Only three nations had ever recognized the Taliban militia groups as the Government of Afghanistan. Not even Iran has ever recognized them. Pakistan had recognized them because they created the Taliban. BTW, the Taliban is also in Pakistan, where it exists only as a religious movement.
# 411 by lepton
************
That doesn't fly, lepton.
Lots of Arab nations refused to recognize the Jews
as the legitimate government of Israel.
History is full of wars waged to replace the government
of an enemy with the "legitimate" government of your allies.
The Talaban were in control of the Capitol and the nation.
A Declaration of War against the government in power is what war is about.
You confuse unalienable rights with constitutional rights -- they are different.
It started under Washington, albeit there were phases of lesser action, with another phase coming into effect during Jefferson's term.
He said that he had done all he could without a Declaration of War from Congress. His successor, Alexander Hamilton, disagreed. Hamilton said that the Pirates had already declared war on the United States, so he wasn't required to wait for a Declaration of War.
His Successor? Hamilton Was President?
Their disagreement was on how broad that authority was. BOTH agreed that the President could carry out war if the nation was attacked, without a Congressional Declaration of War. Congress specifically allocated funds for that action, and for the one we are currently engaged in.
Hooray! ( I was beginning to think no one counted the first undeclared war: the Quasi-war with France.)
Heck, the US Marines were reconstituted to fight it and it had two amphibious landings. But all anybody talks about is the "Barbery Pirates".
Does Congress have the power to establish an official religion for non-citizens?
Where does it get that authority?
The point is which government the US recognizes.... and that IS, and consistently HAS been, the Northern Alliance. We aren't gonna declare war against them.
Atta's Jihad, does the first amendment really prevent our government from stopping free speech in other nations? No. Congress can pass a law to disrupt Chinese communications without infringing on their First Amendment rights, because even though they're people, they have no rights protected by our first amendment from our government. This is beside the issue though. You're so out to lunch. Have you seen any Chinese reporters near where you are?
Declaration of War
In the early draft of the Constitution presented to the Convention by its Committee of Detail, Congress was empowered ''to make war.''1412 Although there were solitary suggestions that the power should better be vested in the President alone,1413 in the Senate alone,1414 or in the President and the Senate,1415 the sentiment of the Convention, as best we can determine from the limited notes of the proceedings, was that the potentially momentous consequences of initiating armed hostilities should be called up only by the concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.1416 In contrast to the English system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual;1417 in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, they did not wish to forego entirely the advantages of executive efficiency nor to entrust the matter solely to a branch so close to popular passions.1418
The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to ''declare war.''1419 Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to insure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks1420 without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President.1421
To: exodus
Exodus, Hamilton was never president.
# 417 by Texasforever
************
Boy, am I shocked.
Do you still have that link you posted that said Jefferson refused to act without a Declaration of War, but Hamilton said that he didn't need one, and fought the Pirates without a Declaration of War from Congress?
Reading that, I assumed that Hamilton was President after Jefferson. Eveything else I know about the Barbary Pirates other than your link is from my Junior High reading.
Wasn't there an incident back in April with an EP-3 over in China? We weren't eavesdropping without a warrant were we!!? Even Bob Barr knows that was ok, since those Airmen weren't even on "US soil."
There's no font size adequately large enough for the "Duh" you deserve.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:EEAyutBhVf4:www.atr.org/policybriefs/081301.war.powers.pdf+barbary+pirates&hl=en
"The Jews" are not the official government of Israel. Only the Government of Israel. As to the Arab nations recognition, that might affect their declaration if they had a similar Constitution, but as they do not, it is a non-sequitor. We aren't talking about Pakistan warring with Afghanistan under our laws and Constitution - we're talking about the U.S. doing so against the Taliban.
FYI, the Taliban took Kabul, but the seat of government moved. Also, and not particularly relevant, they never controlled more than half the country. 50% controlled by Taliban, 35% in constant dispute, and 15% by the NA. No international body that I am aware of, and certainly not the U.N. had recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan either, so we were in a rather large company.
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.If is here legally, they have the right to be well regulated...that is, own firearms. Your stipulated "background check" is a violation of the second amendment. Fortunately, if our Republic were truly Free as intended by the Framers, the rest of the passangers, some at least, would be likewise regulated. Who are you? HCI? Brady Bunch?
Quite incorrect.
You are so full of it.
You begin the thread asking if the Bill of Rights “covers non-citizens.”
You go on to specifically state you are talking about non-citizens within the US’s jurisdiction. (see Posts 18, 25, 30, 62, 72, 109, etc.)
After having been ridiculed for several hundred posts by those who know better, you are now trying to backtrack and make it appear as if you were only talking about non-citizens in foreign countries.
What a dolt.
Give it up.
There you go again... See post 438.
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.