Posted on 12/02/2001 8:50:01 AM PST by H.Akston
It's not the United State's job to be God, and protect everyone's unalienable rights. There are only certain people in this world who are protected by the Bill of Rights. Even though little Alien [SIC] was on our soil, he obviously was not one of them.
Not true, and I've said nothing to make a reasonable person think so.
The question we're dealing with here is:
Who can legitimately expect to be protected by the Bill of Rights?
We know that one answer to that question is "Not everyone in the world". So even if the rights in the Bill of Rights WERE (which they're not) unalienable rights, the US doesn't necessarily have to protect those rights.
I still maintain that anyone that the US can deport from here on US Soil, is not covered by the Bill of Rights. That is a self-evident fact, that proves Barr wrong. (And me right)
As for the BoRs being unalienable - that is a novel idea, which is in conflict with US judicial precedent. Why do you suppose that the Supreme Court has not used the 14th Amendment to impose the entire BoR on the States? If they were unalienable rights, the USSC would be morally obligated to impose them ALL on the States. The fact is that the high court has deliberately not incorporated all of them into the States' Constitutions. (Forgetting for a moment that the Court was wrong not to apply them based on the Supremacy Clause in Article VI in the first place) The USSC is fallible, but IT doesn't regard the Bill of Rights as unalienable rights, because they give the States the authority to not protect a select few of those rights. (I think the 2nd Amendment is one)
True enough.
Why should a right be given??
Just "recognise it", protect it and that is all that needs be done.
True enough.
But to "give it" implies you never had it UNTIL governmnent gave it to you.
True enough.
Now that we've established those irrelevant truths, my point is that our Government doesn't owe every "person" on our soil the protection of the Bill of Rights. We can ship some of them back, or try them in a military tribunal without a jury.
Yes I did. You set a booby trap for me :)
Merry Christmas you boob.
"If liberals [and republicans who are too liberal with the rights that belong only to those people "OF THE UNITED STATES"] succeed in getting foreign terrorists tried in courts designed for American citizens, instead of in military tribunals, we can expect trials and appeals to drag on for years, if not decades, demoralizing and embittering the American public." - Thomas Sowell
I think it's time to recognize a new species (or a very old species that hasn't been very active since Reconstruction) - the bleeding heart republican.
I can only conclude that you have some strange inablity to see that our republic was based on the idea of persons everywhere having inalienable rights. - Those same 'persons', legally in US jurisdiction, are protected by our constitution.
Illegal aliens are dealt with by various US Codes, -- again, -- under constitutional law, - depending on the criminality of their 'illegal' status. --- Thus. the controversy over a harmless little boy.
Why you seem to be having such a problem with such simple concepts is best left to mental health experts, imo.
"Under Constitutional Law" which says that some "little boys" are not protected by the Bill of Rights - i.e. they don't have a 5th Amendment liberty to stay here, since, as the Constitution says, they're not "of the United States". They can be loaded on the railroad car, under the Constitution.
As William F. Buckley said - That non-citizens [on US Soil] have inferior privileges, [one of which is the protection of an unalienable right of liberty] does not offend [one who is not a bleeding heart].
But I'm in William F. Buckley's and Thomas Sowell's camp, and you're in Patrick Leahy's. Now who's the weird one?
-- Apparently, a 'bleeding heart' republican, to you, would be one who upheld our republics constitution as per the 'peoples' rights.
By providing any vagrant who washes up on our soil a free lawyer, you're the one who is NOT upholding our republic's Constitution as per the "people of the United States"' rights. You think you're upholding the Constitution, but in reality, I'm the one who's interpreting it correctly and upholding it - and protecting the general welfare. You would allow foreign criminals to have an increased and undeserved chance to live another day to kill another American.
Over & over people & persons are mentioned in the constitution, yet you would deny them rights unless they are citizens.
Over and over again, the "person's" mentioned are "of the United States". You've got to put the document in context, otherwise you'll be providing free US Taxpaid lawyers to Japanese citizens. I can only conclude that you are a bleeding heart republican, along with backup, A.J. Armitage, and Luis Gonzalez.
My my, what a weird statement. And I'm the loonie? A loonie who can't read? You and backup need a checkup.
That doesn't even sound right to say. You're just being semantical. The offensive and unreasonable freeper "backup" already tried to say this at post 137 and was soundly squashed in post 274. I caution you not to side with him. It makes more sense to say that the Bill of Rights covers people - "covers" meaning "protects". The Bill of Rights rights are defensive weapons of "We the People" against their government. Those rights can not defend the people of Serbia from tyrannical actions of our government, for example, as Bill Clinton demonstrated. All Governments permeate the world, their reach limited only by their military might and maybe the Geneva convention, and only certain people in the world are entitled to protection from ours. Our government can protect us from other governments, like that of Iraq's, but the Bill of Rights protects (covers, shelters, etc.) us from our Government. We're special.
Why do you want to mother these terrorists? You want him to have a speedy trial, don't you. To he[eleven] with the scumbag. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the despots.
And I suppose if you aren't a republican you're a libertarian.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." --Federalist 51
If men were angels, libertarians could get elected. If Libertarians could get elected, no government would be necessary. If Libertarians could govern angels, they'd have them hooked on crack in a few weeks and turn them into men.
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.