View Poll Results: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 25.71%
  • No

    16 45.71%
  • Somewhere in between

    9 25.71%
  • Not sure, but I'm interested in what others have to say

    1 2.86%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

  1. #31
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,423

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Right, or even more accurately, some *do* and some do *not*

    The Framers of our constitution deliberately and intentionally granted our govt the power to protect rights - in some instances only the power to protect those rights for citizens (ex voting) and in others, for every person regardless of citizenship
    How do you know that? Because you want to believe it? There are a great many things that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court because they are specifically not clearly defined in the Constitution. The notion that everything is always "clear" in what it says and doesn't say is absurd, as evidenced by the countless court cases seeking correction and definition over the life of the country.

    What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #32
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    How do you know that? Because you want to believe it? There are a great many things that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court because they are specifically not clearly defined in the Constitution. The notion that everything is always "clear" in what it says and doesn't say is absurd, as evidenced by the countless court cases seeking correction and definition over the life of the country.
    If you are asking that as an epistemological question, I'd say you are being obtuse. If you are asking about how I know how the constitution is applied (wrt to the rights of non-citizens) the answer is that the Supreme Court (which the constitution expressly gives the power to decide such things) has clearly stated that the words "person" and "people", as used in the constitution (including the 1st amend), apply to citizens and non-citizens.

    What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.
    No, it doesn't "automatically apply". It applies because SCOTUS says it applies, and SCOTUS is the institution which the Constitution says gets to decide such matters.

    The 10th refers to the powers of govts, and says nothing about whether non-citizens have rights. In fact, your quote says nothing about the rights of persons. You are conflating the powers of govt (which are delegated to it by the people) and the rights of people. The difference between the rights of people, and the powers of govt, are a subject taught in Constitutional Law 101.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #33
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Constitutional rights apply to those on U.S. soil. The only rights specific to citizens on U.S. soil are those that the constitution specifically reserves for them. For example, you have a constitutional right to the freedom of expression. That right only applies while you are on U.S. soil. The fact that you are a citizen has nothing to do with it. If you flew to North Korea you would have no right to freedom of expression even though you are a U.S. citizen. Conversely, if a North Korean traveled here, they would enjoy the same freedom of speech you enjoy despite the fact they are not a citizen and despite the fact that in their home country they don't have that right.

    This is constitutional law 101.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #34
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    What is also absurd is the idea that, because it is not addressed (as others have mentioned), it somehow automatically applies. Quite the opposite. The 10th Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". Hence, unless there is very precise wording that says non-citizens are covered, then the people are free to decide.
    The constitution largely does not grant rights to anyone. All it does is limit the power of the government. In most cases it does not state what you may do, it states what the government may not do.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  5. #35
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,668

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Constitutional rights apply to those on U.S. soil. The only rights specific to citizens on U.S. soil are those that the constitution specifically reserves for them. For example, you have a constitutional right to the freedom of expression. That right only applies while you are on U.S. soil. The fact that you are a citizen has nothing to do with it. If you flew to North Korea you would have no right to freedom of expression even though you are a U.S. citizen. Conversely, if a North Korean traveled here, they would enjoy the same freedom of speech you enjoy despite the fact they are not a citizen and despite the fact that in their home country they don't have that right.

    This is constitutional law 101.
    What? What of foreign military forces, terrorists and illegal aliens? Must we simply let them roam freely, unless there is "probable cause" to suspect that they may mean us "real" harm?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #36
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Framing the question in "should" terms, my answer is that if we were to do what SHOULD be done, we wouldn't be following the Constitution in the first place, as it has never received the consent of the governed. It was imposed by force, crafted without the the awareness or input or approval of over 99.99% of the population subjected to its rule, and in many cases deliberately constructed so as to preclude implementation of the political will of the people (no matter how much flowery language was used to suggest the contrary).

    In short, the U.S. constitution was only trivially more responsive to the political will of the population it was imposed upon than, say, a randomly chosen set of laws from any part of the world at the time.

    We can do better. I reject on its face the notion that the best we can do is to resign ourselves to the laws of long-dead white supremacists, slaveholders, rapists, plutocrats, and commissioners of genocide.

    Ironically, the original framing and passage of the Constitution, in letter, spirit, and implementation, violates most of the principles rightly or wrongly associated with it today.
    Last edited by cmakaioz; 07-13-12 at 05:31 PM.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  7. #37
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,419

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What? What of foreign military forces, terrorists and illegal aliens? Must we simply let them roam freely, unless there is "probable cause" to suspect that they may mean us "real" harm?
    An illegal alien is not breaking the law by expressing their opinions or writing an article in a newspaper that is critical of the government. They are breaking the law because they are in violation of immigration law. The government can detain or deport them because they are in violation of immigration law, not because of their stated opinions, any art they create, what articles they may write in a local newspaper and so on.

    Similarly, a terrorist is in violation of the law because they have harmed others or are plotting to do so. They are not in violation of the law because they have Islamist views.

    A foreign military is in violation of U.S. sovereignty if they are on U.S. soil conducting operations that are unauthorized by the U.S. government.

    This is constitutional law 101. It is also the core libertarian constitutional philosophy. I am surprised that so few people understand that.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #38
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    The constitution largely does not grant rights to anyone. All it does is limit the power of the government. In most cases it does not state what you may do, it states what the government may not do.
    And I would add - the constitution doesn't grant anyone rights. Rights are inalienable and everyone has rights. When people speak of "constitutional rights", what they are really referring to is the govts *power* to protect the rights of people (sometimes all people, and sometimes only citizens)
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #39
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,576

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aberration View Post
    Our rights are inalienable. They do no originate from the Constitution.
    Correct, and the purpose of government is to protect those rights.

    But, we have no control over how other people in other nations see their government. The best we can do is to make sure our own government fulfills its purpose. That is a difficult enough task for right now.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #40
    Guru
    Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,699

    Re: Should Constitutional rights extend to non-citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    No we don't. There are countries that don't hold elections with whom we don't interfere.. We support a democratic republican model, but we do not recognize it as a universal human right.
    Just because we do not interfere, does not mean we do not recognize the right.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •