NO PERSON SHALL...be deprived of liberty, without due process of LAW

[PatekPhilippe]

Plus, we’ve waterboarded the heck out of Mohammed – 183 times, by the government’s own count

Good....it was LEGAL ALSO.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

you've ignored numerous requests to cite relevent authority.....

this is nothing more than your opinion with no basis in legal authority or historical authority

You don't appear to understand why the Constitution was written, and to whom it was written to. The same goes for the Bill of Rights. Prove me wrong via the Constitution.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

First Mr Obama decided to stop the Supreme Court approved , Military Tribunals which had already begun.

Then the administration picked out the worst of the group to have their dog & pony show in NYC.

And precedence has been set for the Military tribunals time and time again.

I wonder how many millions of Dollars were wasted because of this little show?

Who cares!!! We borrowed it all from the Chinese last week!!!!

 

[Navy1960]

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

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.
James Madison

It is argued that as this court has held, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935, and in Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777, that no person can be held to answer, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, for any crime for which an infamous punishment may be imposed by the court, and that imprisonment at hard labor for a term of years is an infamous punishment, the detention of the present appellants in the House of Correction at Detroit, at hard labor, for a period of 60 days, without having been sentenced thereto upon an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Source ( FINDLAW caselaw.lp)

I think it's pretty clear that person(s) be they citizens or non-citizens IN THIS NATION are covered under it's laws as well as our constitution.

 

[Yurt]

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

you've ignored numerous requests to cite relevent authority.....

this is nothing more than your opinion with no basis in legal authority or historical authority

You don't appear to understand why the Constitution was written, and to whom it was written to. The same goes for the Bill of Rights. Prove me wrong via the Constitution.

no....you made the claim and have yet to cite any authority, save for ADMITTING that courts have said you're wrong....

it is up to you to show how you're right via the constitution....the constitution does not LIMIT the rights to only citizens....YOU are limiting the right which is actually a contradictory POV , yet you want to limit rights...it is absurd to claim that only citizens can claim rights....

don't cop out, come on, prove your point

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government,

Excellent, correct.

as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

Also true.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place.

So , the US can seize the assets of the Toyota Corporation without a trial? If what you are saying is true no foreign corporation would invest in the US.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Actually Yurt he did answer everything you posted here - see red.

Simply not true. ANYONE inside the US falls within the protections of the Constitution. Already debated and ruled on LONG AGO.

Yet there is still precedence for Military Tribunals, even within the boundaries of the United States.

This is very true..back when Democrats had a fucking backbone German and Japanese spies CAPTURED ON U.S. SOIL were tried by military tribunals.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

you don't personally have to enter the situs of the crime to be guilty of it.....

I know, that is why I am interested in what evidence they have.

he could get off you know...

as my thread on politics shows....even if he found guilty, holder is NOT going to release him.....

What part of the Constitution allows for that contingency? Just askin'

 

[Navy1960]

EX Parte QUIRIN
Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

Military Tribunals are wholly consistant with the constitution and do not conflict with my previous post in reagards to those covered under the constitution, nor by their existance such as was the case with the 8 German spies.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

where are you? Mars? they don't have the telly or the news there??? that's what trials are for.. to get the peoples off.. That what defense lawyers do.. I think... but then old holder bolder announced.. If by chance they are acquitted, we still won't let them walk free." now ain't that a hoot n a holler?

I don't follow everything happening in the US....

And the guy is an idiot for saying such..

Then again, you did have an AG that fired a whole lot of attorneys because of their politics...Can't get much more stomach churning that that IMO

You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

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.
James Madison

It is argued that as this court has held, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935, and in Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777, that no person can be held to answer, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, for any crime for which an infamous punishment may be imposed by the court, and that imprisonment at hard labor for a term of years is an infamous punishment, the detention of the present appellants in the House of Correction at Detroit, at hard labor, for a period of 60 days, without having been sentenced thereto upon an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Source ( FINDLAW caselaw.lp)

I think it's pretty clear that person(s) be they citizens or non-citizens IN THIS NATION are covered under it's laws as well as our constitution.

And that conclusion was arrived at by the SCOTUS extrapolating something from the Constitution that was not there to begin with. I asked for refutation of my position via the Constitution itself, if you disagree with me.

 

[Contumacious]

First Mr Obama decided to stop the Supreme Court approved , Military Tribunals which had already begun......

The military commission, a tribunal neither mentioned in the Constitution nor created by statute,

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006)

 

[Navy1960]

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

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.
James Madison

It is argued that as this court has held, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935, and in Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777, that no person can be held to answer, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, for any crime for which an infamous punishment may be imposed by the court, and that imprisonment at hard labor for a term of years is an infamous punishment, the detention of the present appellants in the House of Correction at Detroit, at hard labor, for a period of 60 days, without having been sentenced thereto upon an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Source ( FINDLAW caselaw.lp)

I think it's pretty clear that person(s) be they citizens or non-citizens IN THIS NATION are covered under it's laws as well as our constitution.

And that conclusion was arrived at by the SCOTUS extrapolating something from the Constitution that was not there to begin with. I asked for refutation of my position via the Constitution itself, if you disagree with me.

There are many instances in which the USSC has made decisions based on less than stellar constitutional merits . Texas v. White for example, which has based almost entirely on the Articles of Confederation . The answer to your question is an easy one, the rights in the constitution are Inalienable rights
Legal Definition
That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable. Similarly, various types of property are inalienable, such as rivers, streams, and highways
(Source Law)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The Art. VI, �2 Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the "supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby…"

The Supreme Court has held in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., At 212 that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment " 'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction ...' ",

Now while the 14th has already been posted here I won't repost it, however, I've given you more than a few examples to show you that both citizens and non-citizens are convered under the consitution as long as they are in this NATION. Further, in the creation of this nation as I pointed out eariler, The Declaration of Independance even uses the word Inalienable as a means to show that there are some rights that cannot be taken away by Govt. All that aside the Supremacy Clause covers what you wish, as well. It does not specify that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land for Citizens, the last two words are left off. So long as a person is in this nation they are covered by that supreme law. That does not automatically give the an out when it comes to a Military Tribunal as I pointed out prior to this posting as well.

 

[Mike458877]

The people who support this sham and slap in the face to each American can rationalize and justify it until they are blue in face!

This is simple, this White House and Holder had one of two choices, civil or military. Both provide due process, one spits in this nations face!

They willingly chose to piss all over this nation, suffering American's who have already suffered more than enough!

You who are defending this choice and trying to make it seem proper, honorable and the correct legal thing to do, all of you should be ashamed! ......... You are aiding the enemy, by helping them to commit more harm on fellow American's!

So stop this BS and man up, you agree with Obama's vision and opinion of this nation and it's people! You basically don't respect either!

Mike

 

[Navy1960]

Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. ... Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine — through democratic means — how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same
Justice Bryer Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

As I pointed out before in several postings, these military tribunals, commissions are nothing new under the constitution and go all the way back to George Washington, thru Lincoln, to FDR, and on, So to simply dismiss them now as some new form of American Justice is simply a break with a very long tradition. They are wholly consistant with the consitution and have been for a very long time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

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.
James Madison

It is argued that as this court has held, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935, and in Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777, that no person can be held to answer, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, for any crime for which an infamous punishment may be imposed by the court, and that imprisonment at hard labor for a term of years is an infamous punishment, the detention of the present appellants in the House of Correction at Detroit, at hard labor, for a period of 60 days, without having been sentenced thereto upon an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Source ( FINDLAW caselaw.lp)

I think it's pretty clear that person(s) be they citizens or non-citizens IN THIS NATION are covered under it's laws as well as our constitution.

And that conclusion was arrived at by the SCOTUS extrapolating something from the Constitution that was not there to begin with. I asked for refutation of my position via the Constitution itself, if you disagree with me.

Provide even one section of the Constitution where in it states that " the people" must be citizens.

 

[Dr Grump]

You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.

And that is why your system sucks...

 

[Dr Grump]

The people who support this sham and slap in the face to each American can rationalize and justify it until they are blue in face!

This is simple, this White House and Holder had one of two choices, civil or military. Both provide due process, one spits in this nations face!

They willingly chose to piss all over this nation, suffering American's who have already suffered more than enough!

You who are defending this choice and trying to make it seem proper, honorable and the correct legal thing to do, all of you should be ashamed! ......... You are aiding the enemy, by helping them to commit more harm on fellow American's!

So stop this BS and man up, you agree with Obama's vision and opinion of this nation and it's people! You basically don't respect either!

Mike

And you're a fucking idiot who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag

How come all you right wing loons are always banging on about your constitution and freedom and rights, when always y'all who are talking about taking it away from people.

Freedom or death my arse...bunch of phoneys....

 

[Dr Grump]

Provide even one section of the Constitution where in it states that " the people" must be citizens.

I believe he is talking about the spirit of the constitution...

 

[elvis]

The people who support this sham and slap in the face to each American can rationalize and justify it until they are blue in face!

This is simple, this White House and Holder had one of two choices, civil or military. Both provide due process, one spits in this nations face!

They willingly chose to piss all over this nation, suffering American's who have already suffered more than enough!

You who are defending this choice and trying to make it seem proper, honorable and the correct legal thing to do, all of you should be ashamed! ......... You are aiding the enemy, by helping them to commit more harm on fellow American's!

So stop this BS and man up, you agree with Obama's vision and opinion of this nation and it's people! You basically don't respect either!

Mike

And you're a fucking idiot who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag

How come all you right wing loons are always banging on about your constitution and freedom and rights, when always y'all who are talking about taking it away from people.

Freedom or death my arse...bunch of phoneys....

what rights are Obama's political enemies talking about taking away?