The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[cnm]

Do we often extend foreigners the curtesy of constitutional rights? Yes. Do we have to? Absolutely not.

When they're on US soil, yes you do. Well, according to the goddamn bit of paper, at least.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So, according to the 2nd Amendment - you have the right to own any weapon you choose? Right? How many fully automatic weapons do you own? Sawed-off shotguns? Hand grenades? Bazookas?

The refusal of a corrupt and criminal government to uphold a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms, protects, and forbids from being infringed, does not make that right invalid, nor justify the blatantly illegal violation of that right.

The Constitution gives the citizens the right and means to remove a corrupt Government. Either by vote or force.

 

[Slyhunter]

I was wondering why the CIA & Department of State had revoked my passport. I originally thought it was because of gender identity — some of those countries are extremely conservative and anti-LGBT despite their socialist labor-union policies, and make the gross assumption that travelers are having sex with the locals unless they are already "with" an opposite-sex spouse on the trip.

However, that's not the real reason, only a certain old-school establishment line of thinking. In real life, people who are married or in a committed family relationship of any sort don't care if other people are "gay" or "straight" or even if they have sex at all.

The real reason has nothing to do with sex at all. It is that Americans have guns, and we are not welcome in some of those other countries with our guns.

American Passports Are Useless Now

I can go just about anywhere with my German passport. But almost no one wants to let in Americans these days.

amp.theatlantic.com

Then why do they get pissed when we close a base?

 

[P@triot]

Do we often extend foreigners the curtesy of constitutional rights? Yes. Do we have to? Absolutely not.

When they're on US soil, yes you do. Well, according to the goddamn bit of paper, at least.

Then your dumb ass should be able to cite the Article and Section of the “goddamn bit of paper” that states foreigners have constitutional rights when “they’re on US soil”.

Come on, big mouth. Talk is cheap. Cite the Article and Section.

 

[justinacolmena]

Then why do they get pissed when we close a base?

Because the local girls are heartbroken to lose the financial patronage of U.S. military boys on leave from the base.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I was wondering why the CIA & Department of State had revoked my passport. I originally thought it was because of gender identity — some of those countries are extremely conservative and anti-LGBT despite their socialist labor-union policies, and make the gross assumption that travelers are having sex with the locals unless they are already "with" an opposite-sex spouse on the trip.

However, that's not the real reason, only a certain old-school establishment line of thinking. In real life, people who are married or in a committed family relationship of any sort don't care if other people are "gay" or "straight" or even if they have sex at all.

The real reason has nothing to do with sex at all. It is that Americans have guns, and we are not welcome in some of those other countries with our guns.

American Passports Are Useless Now

I can go just about anywhere with my German passport. But almost no one wants to let in Americans these days.

amp.theatlantic.com

Then why do they get pissed when we close a base?

Yeah, try and get on a plane with a gun.

 

[mascale]

Toward the bottom, in the summary of arguments below: There is the problem of allusion to a Universal Deity--even at the start of the USA.
_____________________________
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people." The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality." The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights. The Constitution's limitation to citizens of the right against discriminatory denial of the vote does not mean that noncitizens cannot vote. If a state or locality chooses to enfranchise its noncitizen residents, it may do so. Indeed, until the early twentieth century, noncitizens routinely enjoyed the right to vote as a matter of state and local law. By contrast, the Constitution expressly restricts to citizens the right to hold federal elective office.

There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections: 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. While Madison's view was not without its CrItIcs, his view prevailed in the long run.

On this view, the Constitution pre16. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). See also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (Murphy. J., concurring) (arguing that noncitizens are protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) (holding that noncitizens charged with crimes are protected by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 724 (1893) (observing that foreign nationals are entitled to all "the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws, in regard to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibility"); Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651,660 (1892) (noting that foreign nationals incarcerated here have a constitutional right to invoke habeas corpus).

Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested some limitation on the rights of some foreign nationals in the United States in his plurality opinion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990), in which he suggested that a Mexican citizen who had been involuntarily brought into this country for criminal prosecution was not part of "the people" eligible to invoke the Fourth Amendment. However, he was unable to gamer a majority for that view, and Justice Kennedy, whose vote was necessary to the majority in that case, expressly rejected Rehnquist's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to all persons present in the United States. !d. at 276-77 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy rested instead on the fact that the search took place beyond our borders, a factor also relied upon by Chief Justice Rehnquist. [d. at 278. JONATHAN ELLIOT, THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (Taylor & Maury, 1836).

The debate that accompanied the enactment and ultimate demise of the Alien and Sedition Acts suggests that there was in fact substantial disagreement about the status of foreign nationals' rights in the early years of the republic, at least in a time of crisis. Opponents of the Alien Act, mostly Republicans, pointed to the broad language of the Bill of Rights and the legal obligations imposed on all persons residing within our territory as support for the notion that foreign nationals were entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights. Others, mostly Federalists, maintained that the Constitution was a more limited social compact that protected only "we the people." See GERALD L. NEUMAN, STRANGERS TO THE CONSTITUTION: IMMIGRANTS. BORDERS, AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW 52-63 (1996). But as with the 371 HeinOnline -- 25 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 372 2002-2003 THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25:367 sumptively extends not just to citizens, but to all who are subject to American legal obligations, and certainly to all persons within the United States. Madison's view is buttressed by the fact that when adopted, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were viewed not as a set of optional contractual provisions enforceable because they were agreed upon by a group of states and extending only to the contracting parties, but as inalienable natural rights that found their provenance in God.
______________________
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(The deity can be said to be an entirely lethal concept, that people pray for--the return of a butchering Jesus, preying on the genitals of their babies(?): Matt 25: 14-30!)

 

[Blues Man]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

I might have to disagree on one point.

Yes the Constitution is only legally valid within the borders of the US and its territories but it applies to all people that happen to be within those borders as well with the few exceptions being those article that specifically state that citizens are the only group entitled to that particular protection. The right to vote is the best example of that.

Any Constitutional article that references persons or the people apply to any an all persons within the US jurisdiction

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? | Victor Malca P.A.

Do non-citizens have constitutional rights? The short answer is yes, but which constitutional rights and how far they go is a better question.

victormalcalaw.com

 

[BS Filter]

230 or so odd years of judicial precedent and interpretation disagree with you.

But, I don't imagine you'll let anything so insignificant as reality stop you from believing what you want.

There is no such thing as "Settled Law".

 

[mascale]

BS Filter poster can likely hear the laughter in court, even from wherever it is that the poster has to be. A usual example is, "Acceptance" is not a part of a contract matter.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Billions, however, do accept this as settled, "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth: Matt 25: 14-30--and generally unsettling as it is(?)!)

 

[P@triot]

Yes the Constitution is only legally valid within the borders of the US and its territories but it applies to all people that happen to be within those borders as well with the few exceptions being those article that specifically state that citizens are the only group entitled to that particular protection. The right to vote is the best example of that.

That's wrong for several reasons. For starters, there is no such thing as "you can have some constitutional rights but not others". You either have constitutional rights or you don't.

Furthermore, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that the document applies to a "group entitled to particular protections". It just doesn't. No such thing exists.

Yes we normally extended foreigners rights out of curtesy, but in no way are we constitutionally required to extend that curtesy.

 

[bendog]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

Literal interpretation is a bitch, isn't it. LOL

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is time to put this idiotic left-wing false narrative to rest once and for all. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. As such, it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only. A non-US citizen has no constitutional rights. None. They don't have a right to free speech. The don't have a right to keep and bear arms. They don't have a right to an attorney. They don't have a right to a phone call. And they can absolutely be held indefinitely without being charged. They have no rights.

While I would agree that it is not an "international document," your other claims are incorrect. The Constitution limits what the U.S. federal government may do, and in some cases the state governments. The U.S. government cannot make a law infringing on the free speech of non-citizens because they don't have the power to make those laws at all regardless of the individual's citizenship.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nowhere does it say, "... unless the person happens to be a foreigner."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Time to end this before more left-winger attempt to argue their false narrative further. For the last time right here and now:

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document and as such, non-US citizens do not have constitutional rights. If they did, they could not be prevented from voting. And the law absolutely prevents any non-US citizen from voting.

"However, green card holders cannot do everything that U.S. citizens can. They cannot vote in U.S. elections."




Difference Between U.S. Green Card and U.S. Citizenship

It's true, in a sense, that non-citizens have no constitutional rights, but neither do citizens. Every human has rights, period. The Constitution grants certain powers to the U.S. federal government, and then explicitly states certain things that it may not do such as infringe on rights that exist regardless of the Constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes the Constitution is only legally valid within the borders of the US and its territories but it applies to all people that happen to be within those borders as well with the few exceptions being those article that specifically state that citizens are the only group entitled to that particular protection. The right to vote is the best example of that.

That's wrong for several reasons. For starters, there is no such thing as "you can have some constitutional rights but not others". You either have constitutional rights or you don't.

Furthermore, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that the document applies to a "group entitled to particular protections". It just doesn't. No such thing exists.

Yes we normally extended foreigners rights out of curtesy, but in no way are we constitutionally required to extend that curtesy.

No you are incorrect.

Where the constitution specifies one must be a citizen then only citizens are allowed to exercise those rights.

For example:

The 4th and 5th amendment do not specify citizens but rather says the people, person, or persons

So any person that is within the borders or jurisdiction of the US is entitled to 4th and 5th amendment protections.

The fifteenth amendment states that no citizens shall be denied the right to vote but non citizens can be denied the right to vote.

So non citizens have some constitutional protections but not all of them

 

[Blues Man]

Time to end this before more left-winger attempt to argue their false narrative further. For the last time right here and now:

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document and as such, non-US citizens do not have constitutional rights. If they did, they could not be prevented from voting. And the law absolutely prevents any non-US citizen from voting.

"However, green card holders cannot do everything that U.S. citizens can. They cannot vote in U.S. elections."




Difference Between U.S. Green Card and U.S. Citizenship

It's true, in a sense, that non-citizens have no constitutional rights, but neither do citizens. Every human has rights, period. The Constitution grants certain powers to the U.S. federal government, and then explicitly states certain things that it may not do such as infringe on rights that exist regardless of the Constitution.

It is not true that non citizens have no constitutional rights

any person within the jurisdiction of the US is entitled to some constitutional protection

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? | Victor Malca P.A.

Do non-citizens have constitutional rights? The short answer is yes, but which constitutional rights and how far they go is a better question.

victormalcalaw.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Time to end this before more left-winger attempt to argue their false narrative further. For the last time right here and now:

The U.S. Constitution is not an international document and as such, non-US citizens do not have constitutional rights. If they did, they could not be prevented from voting. And the law absolutely prevents any non-US citizen from voting.

"However, green card holders cannot do everything that U.S. citizens can. They cannot vote in U.S. elections."




Difference Between U.S. Green Card and U.S. Citizenship

It's true, in a sense, that non-citizens have no constitutional rights, but neither do citizens. Every human has rights, period. The Constitution grants certain powers to the U.S. federal government, and then explicitly states certain things that it may not do such as infringe on rights that exist regardless of the Constitution.

It is not true that non citizens have no constitutional rights

any person within the jurisdiction of the US is entitled to some constitutional protection

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? | Victor Malca P.A.

Do non-citizens have constitutional rights? The short answer is yes, but which constitutional rights and how far they go is a better question.

victormalcalaw.com

I was making a somewhat pedantic, I suppose is the word, point. None of us have constitutional rights, because the Constitution does not confer rights onto people that did not exist prior to the Constitution's ratification. We had the freedom of speech before the Constitution; the Constitution merely explicitly stated that the federal government does not have the right to infringe on our right to free speech. In other words, the Constitution did not give us the right to freedom of speech, but merely protected the right that already existed explicitly.

It's not really important functionally, but that is the theory of the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

any person within the jurisdiction of the US is entitled to some constitutional protection

Sorry, not even remotely true. There is a significant difference between choosing to extend them some curtsies and rights.

It's not an international document. A Honduran here illegally has no right to keep and bear arms, no right to vote, no right to free speech or protest. They just don't.

 

[P@triot]

The U.S. government cannot make a law infringing on the free speech of non-citizens because they don't have the power to make those laws at all regardless of the individual's citizenship.

Sure they do. The U.S. Constitution grants the Executive branch control over immigration. Which means they absolutely have the constitutional power to grab a foreigner speaking, take them to the ground, arrest them, and deport them.

 

[gipper]

The U.S. government cannot make a law infringing on the free speech of non-citizens because they don't have the power to make those laws at all regardless of the individual's citizenship.

Sure they do. The U.S. Constitution grants the Executive branch control over immigration. Which means they absolutely have the constitutional power to grab a foreigner speaking, take them to the ground, arrest them, and deport them.

It’s all a moot point. We are whistling past the graveyard. The constitution died long ago thanks to a criminal government, and a criminal elite that controls it.