Does The Constitution Pertain Only To US Citizens?

[stevewo]

I believe lbrtygrl was simply asking:

..doesn't the constitution protect all people living in the U.S. and not just citizens?

and

He feels that the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment. (which I agree with, but I think he feels ALL Muslims practice this sort of radical Islam) Any thoughts?

and the subject of the post is:

Does the constitution pertain only to US citizens

The question is do Constitutional rights protect (secure, pertain, protect or whatever) anyone - non-citizen and/or citizen. The answer is straight forward - yes.

lbrtygrl - since you quote Judge Napolitano maybe the easiest way to understand this is to use his words:

Judge NapolitanoFrom a debate with Lou Dobbs:

It's interesting to note a little piece of trivia: The U.S. Constitution prohibits only two types of private action (everything else is a restriction on what the government can do. So please stop arguing that illegal immigrants, or foreigners in general, are not protected by the Constitution in the U.S. They most decidedly are, since the Constitution addresses itself to*what the U.S. government is permitted to do*within its jurisdiction). Those two actions? Individuals in the U.S. cannot own slaves (thirteenth amendment), and, for a time anyways, they had to put up with prohibition (eighteenth amendment). Happily, the latter was repealed. So, really, there's now only one thing in the Constitution addressing itself to what Americans can't do.

From: A Nation of Sheep

Though there is some disagreement over whether a citizen can be deemed an "enemy combatant" under the Military Commissions Act, this is a moot point for several reasons. First, if the legislation is that ambiguous, the distinction will not stand. Second, the Bush administration has already pronounced American citizens, such as Jose Padilla, as enemy combatants and held them*incommunicado*without charges while subjecting them to sophisticated psychological torture techniques. Unless this abuse of power is overturned, a precedent will have been established. But most importantly, our natural rights do not come from our status as citizens; they come from our Creator. Violating the basic rights of the accused simply because they are noncitizens is wrong, period.

lbrtygrl - I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment." What practices are you referring too? Irregardless, the words of Justice Kennedy should offer some guidance in this.

Writing for the majority in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES he states:

security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being the freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

The key words being "fidelity to freedoms first principles" and "personal liberty." These are the guiding principles and they extend (legally) to citizens and non-citizens in the USA proper and US controlled territory.

I hope that helps you in your discussions. I am curious to know how your discussions go so please post an update if you have the time.

 

[oyarde]

The Constitution applies to Americans, the physical land, ie States and Commonwealths. So if a person in the United States but a foreigner commits an act of violence or does something illegal he is subject to our court system and can plead the 5th etc. I really am surprised to see a debate about this, the Constitution only does not apply to diplomats here in the United States.

Diplomats , foreign officials , foreign military , anyone who represents another country in some capacity ?

 

[romacox]

the constitution only pertains to the federal government. it doesn't grant rights, it only outlines the powers the government has, and list a few powers the feds shall never obtain (bill of rights)
this is the answer you need. your question is incorrect to begin with.

• You are right on Torchbearer...the Constitution does not pertain to U.S. citizens. It pertains to the U.S. Federal Government.

• The Founding Fathers said our rights are given to us, not by the government, but by our Creator (words have been changed to humanity to include those who do not believe in a Creator)

 

[libertygrl]

I believe lbrtygrl was simply asking:



and



and the subject of the post is:



The question is do Constitutional rights protect (secure, pertain, protect or whatever) anyone - non-citizen and/or citizen. The answer is straight forward - yes.

lbrtygrl - since you quote Judge Napolitano maybe the easiest way to understand this is to use his words:

Judge NapolitanoFrom a debate with Lou Dobbs:


From: A Nation of Sheep


lbrtygrl - I am not exactly sure what you mean by "the Constitution does not protect certain practices that allow for cruel and unusual punishment." What practices are you referring too? Irregardless, the words of Justice Kennedy should offer some guidance in this.
.

Yes, that was a big help thank you! What I was referring to by the quote from above, had to do with the discussion I've been having over the issue of protecting religious freedom with regards to Islam. The guy I've been debating is of the opinion that just because we have free speech in this country, you still can't yell out fire in a movie theater. He was trying to make the point that Islam (in his opinion) is a violent religion which seeks to harm other people. So in that respect, it should not be protected under the constitution. He believes this is a point that Ron Paul and people like us refuse to understand (even though he agrees with Ron Paul 97% of the time on other issues.)

I've been debating him for three days now but I've given up. He's just set in his ways. Despite showing him confirmed reports where the CIA and the Moussad had a hand in radicalizing these groups he just said it was a bunch of hog wash. (the guy's a former Vietnam Vet and is pretty knowledgeable about the NWO and other shadowy agendas so I'm surprised his mind is closed off on this particular issue.)

 

[WaltM]

I wouldn't take any legal advice from Danke.

He couldn't even defend his positions on tax evasion.