Preventive Detention
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court.
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S.
The "conforming to laws" bit doesn't seem relevant. If you are talking about rights to trial by jury, then you are talking about people who are at least accused of not conforming to the laws. As for the people of the United States thing, there is an interesting and quite different approach here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html[^]
John Carson
-
Generally, I suspect you and Jon are right. However, in terms of diplomacy and international trade, might this not become an unwelcome problem? An issue that could be blown out of all proportion?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
However, in terms of diplomacy and international trade
Richard, I believe that international trade ought to be conducted by businessmen for business reasons. Governments may have a right and a duty to protect their countries from economic warfare but absent this, it is none of the government's business what contracts are freely entered into. Since that doesn't seem to be the case in the real world (The EU seems intent on balancing its budget by fining American corporations) I believe in an eye for an eye and a fine for a fine. If the UK chooses to stop buying American goods because they don't like the way we treat our terrorists, that's fine. But don't be surprised when the sales of Beefeaters and Glenfiddich drop. (I'm sure there's something else we import, but I can't think of it at the moment.) As to diplomacy, a citizen of Britain should know if any one does, that the French and Germans (and therefore the EU) are the original passive-aggressives. They will demand a mile; graciously accept half a mile and, as soon as the new boundary becomes the status quo, demand a mile again - but a mile from the new demarcation. The only way to placate Europe is to agree to start asking "how high?" as soon as they say "frog." Sooner or later, the UK will figure this out and take a lesson from Ireland. It is a lesson I hope we never need, though it may be one that Obama has yet to learn. Ah! I thought of it - we import sitcoms! ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
many red blooded Americans will become terrorists when they protest this change with force
Well, duh. Do you think you have to wear a head-covering and pray to Allah to be a terrorist?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S.
The "conforming to laws" bit doesn't seem relevant. If you are talking about rights to trial by jury, then you are talking about people who are at least accused of not conforming to the laws. As for the people of the United States thing, there is an interesting and quite different approach here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The "conforming to laws" bit doesn't seem relevant
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase. . .:confused:
John Carson wrote:
If you are talking about rights to trial by jury, then you are talking about people who are at least accused of not conforming to the laws.
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
-
John Carson wrote:
The "conforming to laws" bit doesn't seem relevant
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase. . .:confused:
John Carson wrote:
If you are talking about rights to trial by jury, then you are talking about people who are at least accused of not conforming to the laws.
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase...
Loose wording. Context makes clear that he actually meant "are obliged to conform to it".
Oakman wrote:
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Not Madison's example, however.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens (not illegal aliens, as it happens, but aliens nevertheless --- actually, at the time he was writing, there was, I believe a system of open migration, so the concept of illegal aliens would barely have existed).
John Carson
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
Many people believe so.
But are you that dumb?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
But are you that dumb?
Do you really have to ask?
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
Many people believe so.
But are you that dumb?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
But are you that dumb?
Do you really have to ask?
-
Oakman wrote:
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase...
Loose wording. Context makes clear that he actually meant "are obliged to conform to it".
Oakman wrote:
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Not Madison's example, however.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens (not illegal aliens, as it happens, but aliens nevertheless --- actually, at the time he was writing, there was, I believe a system of open migration, so the concept of illegal aliens would barely have existed).
John Carson
Would you please stop using our founding fathers to justify why we are supposed to set around on our thumbs while being slaughtered like sheep.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Would you please stop using our founding fathers to justify why we are supposed to set around on our thumbs while being slaughtered like sheep.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Would you please stop using our founding fathers to justify why we are supposed to set around on our thumbs while being slaughtered like sheep.
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite :)
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Would you please stop using our founding fathers to justify why we are supposed to set around on our thumbs while being slaughtered like sheep.
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite :)
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite
Perhaps, but one wonders how we managed to take an entire continent away from its original inhabitants if a single American had ever interpreted Madison as you are. Clarly, we Americans have quite deftly applied our founding principles to our own advantage throughout our entire history. I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
have heard Judge Napolitano [^]make the point that it is important to note the Constituition does not specifically refer to citizens, but to "persons" - an important distinction.
Good point. However, the preamble make it clear (for me) that the Constitution applies only to the U.S. and it's people: "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." That's the entire preamble. I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States. All others are people, certainly, and persons, too. But not "People of the United States." If one grants this definition, then anything within the document applies only to "People of the United States." If one doesn't, I would be interested in hear an explanation to diplomats living in their embassy why they are now subject to our laws and Constitution; and, simultaneously to the German Government why, no matter what Americans do or where they do it, they will be judged only by the U.S. in a U.S. Court. my $.02
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States.
I must take exception to "and live on the soil of the United States". There are many Americans that do not live on the soil of the United States that still maintain allegiance to the United States and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Oakman wrote:
Then I wonder why Madison used the phrase...
Loose wording. Context makes clear that he actually meant "are obliged to conform to it".
Oakman wrote:
Perfect example, to my mind, is the arrest of someone who the evidence suggests is an illegal alien. Since they might not be, the Constitution applies to them (presumption of innocence and all that American legal stuff, y'know?) but the minute they are adjudged guilty, they are no longer protected. q.e.d.
Not Madison's example, however.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens (not illegal aliens, as it happens, but aliens nevertheless --- actually, at the time he was writing, there was, I believe a system of open migration, so the concept of illegal aliens would barely have existed).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Loose wording.
Since I am unable to read his mind, I prefer to believe that he used the words he intended to use.
John Carson wrote:
Here he talks about a general right to trial by jury for aliens
Again, it appears that you believe you know better than he what he meant. He talks not of a right, but of a privilege. The last time I looked the law made great distinction between the two, specifically in the ease with which a privilege may be altered or revoked or never granted. I hope you understand why, once again, I assume that the man who wrote the Constitution almost single-handedly and who was a prolific writer had at his command enough knowledge of the English language to distinguish between rights and privileges.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
-
Oakman wrote:
I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States.
I must take exception to "and live on the soil of the United States". There are many Americans that do not live on the soil of the United States that still maintain allegiance to the United States and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
A sense of proportion has never been your strong suite
Perhaps, but one wonders how we managed to take an entire continent away from its original inhabitants if a single American had ever interpreted Madison as you are. Clarly, we Americans have quite deftly applied our founding principles to our own advantage throughout our entire history. I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Or that damn Englishman, Thomas Paine, either!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I hardly think we need the advice of an Australian as to how to continue to do that.
Or that damn Englishman, Thomas Paine, either!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Never heard of him...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
This is all such a load of blithering nonsense. We do not live in a perfect world. No legal system regardless of how well devised will ever be able to deal consistently with every possible challange the society that created that legal system might find itself confronted with. It is altogether appropriate that we as citizens be concerned about the potential for abuse of the laws which protect us from abuse from our own government. However, it is also altogether appropriate that we expect those laws to be able to protect us from threats outside of our own government. There is obviously likely to be no perfect means of achieving both of those goals. We have to risk one or the other. Relying upon our own history indicates that our institutions, at least in the US, are sufficiently robust to endure some period of erring on the side of providing for the physical security of the nation while risking some degree of abuse to ourselves from our own government. Frankly, I think we are a very long way indeed, even under Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps. It is altother appropriate that we take whatever actions are necessary to defend ourselves from the kind of violence these islamic terrorists seem determined to inflict upon us, even if that means denying them the same full degree of justice that we ordinarily reserve to ourselves. If the Islamic world does not like this, than it is their own responsibility to deal with the root casue of the problem themselves. We should stop blaming ourselves for the problem. And, in any case, it is entirely absurd to worry about abuse of our legal system for the purpose of protecting ourselves from violence, when that very same system has been routinely degraded over many decades for far less compelling reasons without a word of protest from those now so concerned about the rights of muslims who have hardly lifted a finger to secure those same rights within their own societies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps
Well, I think some of our older Japanese American's that lived under the Roosevelt administration might disagree with you, as well as some "journalists" of the North who wrote about their dissent concerning the War of Northern Aggression under Lincoln.
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
and rightfully, in my opinion, are entitled to all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, Jimmy, but that won't get you very far in a Thai court. Come back onto American soil and it will, however.
While in Thailand, or any country, I am subject to their laws, just as ailens are subject to US laws while in the US. The fact that I am not on US soil does not in any way make me less a citizen of the US and entitled to all the provisions of the US Constitution with regard as to how the US government treats me. How foreign governments treat me, while in their country, is based on their laws and international treaties to which they have agreed.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes