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 previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700701-714 last
To: A.J.Armitage
The "loaded gun in the wrong hands" is government power without limits on it.

The "loaded gun in the wrong hands" is terrorists claiming protection under our bill of rights. They can't get under our umbrella. It doesn't matter if they're persons. They're not "of the United States". Our umbrella is not for them. They have no IVth Amendment rights.

701 posted on 08/11/2002 12:08:50 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
So if natural inalienable rights were the foundational principles for the DoI and the Constituion, and if natural rights apply to all men by the virture of being human, then how do you conclude that these rights magically stop applying to some people just because they are not "citizens". They are still human, and natural rights philosophy makes no "citizen only" exception to the rights and privilidges that go along with natural rights.
702 posted on 08/11/2002 12:18:25 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The "loaded gun in the wrong hands" is terrorists claiming protection under our bill of rights.

So you'd flip Washington's observation around. Rights are like fire, dangerous and fearful. Better keep them limited and under careful control, like the Founders tried to keep the government.

They can't get under our umbrella. It doesn't matter if they're persons. They're not "of the United States". Our umbrella is not for them. They have no IVth Amendment rights.

I just did a simple text search of the Constitution. Not once does "of the United States" follow "person". It does, significantly, follow "citizen" on several occasions. When the Founders (or later amenders, for that matter) wanted to limit something to American citizens, they did exactly that in so many words. No pussyfooting around about the meaning of person.

I would imagine you meant that as a reference to the Preamble. "We, the people of the United States." But notice what it says AFTER those words. Remember, taking isolated phrases, not even sentences but phrases, is sloganeering, not exegesis. So, what about them? They "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Imagine a monarch saying, "I, the king, recognize the right to a trial by jury." Would that mean only the king gets a jury? Of course not. That would be silly. The people of the United States are the authority issuing the Constitution. If you take that authority seriously, you look at what it says, which leads us back to the fact that the Constitution prohibits the government from doing certain things. Not certain things to us (and the Founders would certainly have known how to say it that if that's what they wanted to say), but certain things, period.

"Hey, officer, he had out of state plates. The no passing zone doesn't apply to him."

703 posted on 08/11/2002 1:12:33 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The persons/people of the United States established the Constitution "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". They didn't do it to secure the blessings of liberty for Mohammed the tArabist.

Please stop Clintonizing and parsing. It's embarassing.

Zacharias's computer should have been searched without a warrant, just like the Constitution says it can be. Barr was wrong and dangerous.

704 posted on 08/11/2002 6:48:07 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
You tell me where God said you can't search someone without a warrant.

Zacharias Moussoui has a "natural" or "inalienable" right to not have his computer searched without a warrant? This is the implication of what Barr said.

I do not believe that IVth amendment rights are divine rights. They are only rights that persons "of the United States" are entitled to.
705 posted on 08/11/2002 6:58:16 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The people of the United States are the authority issuing the Constitution. If you take that authority seriously, you look at what it says, which leads us back to the fact that the Constitution prohibits the government from doing certain things. Not certain things to us (and the Founders would certainly have known how to say it that if that's what they wanted to say), but certain things, period.

That argument doesn't fly, because our government can do most anything to a person outside the United States. Amd as soon as you realize that, you must admit that nationalities are important to the Context of the Bill of Rights. Ever heard of that law against assassinations we're bound to? Now that law wouldn't be necessary if the Bill or Rights restricted the US Government from "doing certain things" (Depriving life without due process) to persons without regard to political boundaries and nationalities.

You've got to understand the Context in which the Constitution exists.

706 posted on 08/11/2002 7:14:12 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
See post 696

Here's the basic fallacy of your position. Our rights come from God, not the Bill of Rights.

God didn't say we couldn't search ZM's computer before the attacks. God gave us the unalienable rights to life (Thou shalt not Kill), liberty and property (Thou shalt not Steal), and we should do our best to secure them.

The subject is the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment right to not be searched on a whim may not be a divinely endowed right. I don't think it is. It doesn't kill him or steal from him, to violate it. Searching ZM's computer in violation of his fictitious 4th Amendment rights would have helped secure many other lives and lots of property in downtown Manhattan. Bob Barr made no exceptions for the 4th Amendment. He was therefore wrong.

707 posted on 08/11/2002 7:21:15 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
The persons/people of the United States established the Constitution "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". They didn't do it to secure the blessings of liberty for Mohammed the tArabist.

So now you're telling me the Preamble limits freedom to the posterity of the American citizens of 1889? Okay, add black folks because of the post- Civil War amendments. That still leaves out most of the American population.

You're cracked, dude.

Please stop Clintonizing and parsing. It's embarassing.

Yes, you really said that taking "person" to mean person is Clintonizing and parsing. Turning the Constitution on its head is apparently making everything upside down.

Person means exactly that.

708 posted on 08/11/2002 9:42:19 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
I suppose you think that's a clever little argument there.
709 posted on 08/11/2002 9:43:32 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"posterity of the American citizens of 1889"

where on God's green earth did you get that year? You're the one who's cracked. You tried to say that the word "people", in "We the people" doesn't mean all persons of the United states!

710 posted on 08/12/2002 5:21:07 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Yes, you really said that taking "person" to mean person is Clintonizing and parsing. Turning the Constitution on its head is apparently making everything upside down.

Huh? You're the one turning the Constitution on its head, giving foreign terrorists IVth Amendment protections from our Government's mission to protect its citizens.

711 posted on 08/12/2002 5:37:32 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Finally, a policy that demonstrates proper disregard for the fictitious 4th Amendment "rights" of foreigners:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10090-2002Aug12.html

We can at least search their little fingerprints without a warrant. GEEZ. I can't believe how some people think the Bill of Rights covers every vagrant that might wash up on our shores.

712 posted on 08/12/2002 6:09:03 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You really must read post number 696.

I've had to argue the same point to so many people now, I've got it almost perfected.

To break the log jam in your mind, that prevents you from understanding me/reason, get this through your head: - the 4th Amendment right to not be searched without a warrant is not a divine right.

There.

That's a simple concept. Let's get that straight. 4th Amendment rights are not divinely endowed rights.

Most of the consternation I've seen on this 700+ thread is caused by people going who go around with the notion in their head that the Bill of Rights are like the 10 Commandments. There might be some overlap between those two documents, in places, but not enough to make Bob Barr right.

713 posted on 08/14/2002 8:41:56 PM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: backup

"Does Congress have the power to establish an official religion for non-citizens?"

Can a blacksmith build steel wings for a bird?

What a stupid question.


714 posted on 11/25/2005 6:09:04 AM PST by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700701-714 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