• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

Maybe he can't read. :shock: What about those NY schools? :lol:
 
I'm pretty ****ing sick of Eric Holder. It's time Obama replaces him.
 
Bottom line: Do you accept "innocent until proven guilty" or not?
First , that's not in the constitution.
Second, you need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be held indefinitely.
 
-Public school students do not have the full protection of the 1st amendment
-POWs may be held indefinitely w/o charges being brought, must less a trial

This list goes on and on...

Just to point out, POW's may not actually just be held into oblivion as your statement seems to indicate. (Unless you want to argue there is a perpetual state of declared war) There are strict guidelines on how POW's are to be treated, and what qualifies someone for POW status within the Geneva Conventions.
 
First , that's not in the constitution.
Second, you need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be held indefinitely.

I would agree with this in theory, however, for US citizens, regardless of their offense, I think they are entitled to full protection under US law.
 
First , that's not in the constitution.
Second, you need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be held indefinitely.

Yes that second item is what I take issue with.
 
Just to point out, POW's may not actually just be held into oblivion as your statement seems to indicate. (Unless you want to argue there is a perpetual state of declared war).
They may be held for as long as the war goes on -- which -is- indefnitely, as you do not know when the war will end.
The war in question need not be declared.
There are strict guidelines on how POW's are to be treated, and what qualifies someone for POW status within the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, though irrelevant to the point.
 
I would agree with this in theory, however, for US citizens, regardless of their offense, I think they are entitled to full protection under US law.
I agree.
I made the statement as a response to the claim that the Constitutiion covers everyone, period. It does not; Constitutional provisions and protections do very much depend on who you are.
 
Yes that second item is what I take issue with.
You may take issue with it all you want -- it is still a fact.
 
No, not everyone. There are any number of people that do not enjoy the same protection of their rights under the Constitution as, say, you and I do.

The U.S. Constitution's protections apply to any person: citizen, resident, or alien. Its privileges (the right to vote and to hold office) are true only of citizens.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Constitution's protections apply to any person, citizen, resident, or alien.
Not -all- of those protections, just most. Usually.


Its privileges (the right to vote and to hold office) are true only of citizens.
So you agree with me that the Condtituton doesnt cover "everybody", just certain people, depending on the circumstance.
 
You may take issue with it all you want -- it is still a fact.

So is the General Welfare clause but we still get a lot of opinions on that!
 
Not -all- of those protections, just most. Usually.

They get all of them. If they seem not to get them, it was because they were non-applicable to the situation, which can happen to citizens as well.

So you agree with me that the Condtituton doesnt cover "everybody", just certain people, depending on the circumstance.

It's protections do.
 
Last edited:
They get all of them. If they seem not to get them, it was because they were non-applicable to the situation, which can happen to citizens as well.

It's protections do.
POWs may be held w/o being charged and without trial with no definite limit on how long.
And so, the protections agints same obviously no not apply to -everyone-.
 
Last edited:
So is the General Welfare clause but we still get a lot of opinions on that!

I'll take that as a concession of the point.
 
POWs may be held w/o being charged and without trial with no definite limit on how long.
And so, the protections agints same obviously no not apply to -everyone-.

That's military law, also derived from the U.S. Constitution, but with different standards than those of federal law. Notions of privacy and property are also considerably different, for soldiers and for citizens, when military law is in effect (consider martial law). Foreigners and residents are subject to military law about as often as citizens, and for the same reasons. Besides that, the president can suspend due process irrespective of citizenship, and it is a fully constitutional action.
 
Last edited:
That's military law, also derived from the U.S. Constitution, but with different standards than those of federal law. Notions of privacy and property are also considerably different, for soldiers and for citizens, when military law is in effect (consider martial law).
And so, as I said, the protection of the constitution do NOT apply to everyone, only certain people in certain situations.
 
And so, as I said, the protection of the constitution do NOT apply to everyone, only certain people in certain situations.

Yes and no. Constitutional protections are categorical imperatives that are meant to apply to everyone in all times, as an application of the theory that by virtue of the nature of existence everybody possesses natural rights and governments have a duty to uphold these wherever their authority and power are established. However, the manner in which a protection is actuated by a government (or military) is situational. Moreover, the POW example does not apply; they still enjoy the same protections as citizens, it just happens in the case of due process that is very low because the Chief Executive can suspend it.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. Constitutional protections are categorical imperatives that are meant to apply to everyone in all times....
And yet, there are SO many examples where they do not.
Freedom of speech for high school students, for instance.

However, the manner in which a protection is actuated by a government (or military) is situational.
That's half os what I said. The other half is above.

Moreover, the POW example does not apply;
It does when the statement in question is "everyone" or 'all people".

they still enjoy the same protections as citizens, it just happens in the case of due process that is very low because the Chief Executive can suspend it.
Then they do -not- enjoy the same protection as citizens - POWs NEVER have the right to habeus corpus or to a trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom