The U.S. Constitution is NOT an international document

[Billo_Really]

Tell us some more....please?

Of all the stupid things you've ever said - that one was by far and away the gem of the bunch.

Is this your job? Are you getting paid to be a dumbass?

Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
​

I find it hard to believe you're this stupid for no reason?

 

[JBond]

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'll answer it like this. Humanity has some God given rights. Some will not understand this answer, and others will ridicule. We have more freedom than most.

 

[JBond]

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.

"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

Actually if you're within 100 miles of any border you have VERY LIMITED rights no matter who you are according to the Patriot act.

Challenging times. Was against the Patriot Act the first time they renewed it. It was supposed to be temporary.

 

[Borillar]

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

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to due process of law.

 

[Borillar]

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.

"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

Actually if you're within 100 miles of any border you have VERY LIMITED rights no matter who you are according to the Patriot act.

Challenging times. Was against the Patriot Act the first time they renewed it. It was supposed to be temporary.

Was against it from the onset. Once you give the government a power like that, it isn't going to go away. Ever.

 

[Borillar]

Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, I'm sure you know the answer to this question.

What's a significant difference between these two clauses?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are none snowflake. Both refer to U.S. citizens only. When the founders penned it, they weren't thinking of Japanese citizens.

By that logic, when the founders penned the 2nd amendment, they weren't thinking of semi-automatic and automatic guns either.

 

[Ame®icano]

They do have rights, just not constitutional rights.

What other rights are there outside of constitutional rights? It's the U.S. Constitution which secures your rights. All of them.

Constitution secures my rights of a citizen. We all, citizens or foreigners have human rights, and beyond that, we as citizens have rights protected by the constitution. Unlike citizens, foreigners don't have our constitutional rights. They can't come here as they please, or work without permit, or vote, or do jury duty, carry the gun, etc.

 

[Ame®icano]

I believe the Constitution applies to everyone. Within the Constitution it states: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

I'm no lawyer but I would think that language applies whether you're from Ohio, Arizona, Mexico or Syria,

The Constitution applies to the US States, not foreign.

I agree with that, but the OP's point that "it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil only" is what doesn't seem legit to me.

What's not legit? Our constitution applies only to US citizens and on US soil.

Can you claim you US constitutional rights in Mexico or China?

 

[Ame®icano]

Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, I'm sure you know the answer to this question.

What's a significant difference between these two clauses?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are none snowflake. Both refer to U.S. citizens only. When the founders penned it, they weren't thinking of Japanese citizens.

By that logic, when the founders penned the 2nd amendment, they weren't thinking of semi-automatic and automatic guns either.

How do you know they weren't? There were powerful guns and machine guns from that period... puckle gun, perhaps?

 

[my2¢]

Can you claim you US constitutional rights in Mexico or China?

Of course not. Whoever claimed that?

 

[ptbw forever]

Can you claim you US constitutional rights in Mexico or China?

Of course not. Whoever claimed that?

Idiots who think foreigners have US constitutional rights.

 

[P@triot]

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'll answer it like this. Humanity has some God given rights. Some will not understand this answer, and others will ridicule. We have more freedom than most.

Absolutely. And we have traditionally chosen to extend foreigners a ton of rights. But we do not legally owe it to them. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document. It applies to U.S. citizens only on U.S. soil only.

 

[P@triot]

By that logic, when the founders penned the 2nd amendment, they weren't thinking of semi-automatic and automatic guns either.

Sure they were. That's why they specifically said "arms" and not "muskets". Back then citizens had cannons (almost every farm had one). A cannon was a massive, devastating weapon of that era.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

"Judicial Precedence" isn't the supreme law of the land, snowflake. The U.S. Constitution is and it is very clear that you are dead-wrong (as usual).

Actually, it's universally agreed upon that many parts of the Constitution apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States - meaning everyone within it's borders, other than diplomats. It's in the text.

Shouting on the internet will not change that reality.

The "jurisdiction" of the United States, to which the Cobstitution holds weight, applies to within our nation's borders and those specific boundaries of embassies that represent the United States alone, and nowhere else.

 

[P@triot]

Tell us some more....please?

Of all the stupid things you've ever said - that one was by far and away the gem of the bunch.

Is this your job? Are you getting paid to be a dumbass?

That's not what you said. You absurdly and irrationally said that "aside from the Supremacy Clause" which made absolutely no sense. You were trying to impress everyone and you sounded insanely stupid.

All Article VI is saying is exactly what the Supremacy Clause says - that federal law trumps state and local law, dumb ass. You continue to take stupidity to unprecedented levels.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's not what you said. You absurdly and irrationally said that "aside from the Supremacy Clause" which made absolutely no sense. You were trying to impress everyone and you sounded insanely stupid.

All Article VI is saying is exactly what the Supremacy Clause says - that federal law trumps state and local law, dumb ass. You continue to take stupidity to unprecedented levels.

I said any treaty Congress ratifies, carry's the same weight as the Constitution. You said that was ridiculous. I then posted the very text in the Constitution that said what I said. Now you're sitting there with a mouth full of crow and running around like chicken little trying to move the goal posts.

Troll on, troll boy...

 

[P@triot]

That's not what you said. You absurdly and irrationally said that "aside from the Supremacy Clause" which made absolutely no sense. You were trying to impress everyone and you sounded insanely stupid.

All Article VI is saying is exactly what the Supremacy Clause says - that federal law trumps state and local law, dumb ass. You continue to take stupidity to unprecedented levels.

I said any treaty Congress ratifies, carry's the same weight as the Constitution. You said that was ridiculous. I then posted the very text in the Constitution that said what I said. Now you're sitting there with a mouth full of crow and running around like chicken little trying to move the goal posts.

Troll on, troll boy...

Snowflake...you just got exposed and you know it. You said (and I quote) "aside from the Supremacy Clause" and then you mentioned Article VI which affirms the Supremacy Clause.

Nobody was arguing that federal law trumps state and local law and yet you want to pretend like someone was and pretend like you brought something to our attention and that we didn't already know. The best part was - we weren't even talking about treatises. You literally cannot figure out which way is up right now.

 

[whitehall]

Actually the U.S. Constitution does not cover U.S. citizens in foreign countries but the blanket of the U.S. Constitution covers the human rights of everyone on U.S. soil including maniacs, illegal aliens, condemned prisoners, convicted prisoners members of the Military and jihadists captured on the battlefield and that's a good thing. Some would say that the human rights blanket of the U.S. Constitution affords the same rights to the unborn but that issue is hotly debated on the left.

 

[evenflow1969]

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.

Here we go again Patriot(should be idiot) strait out of the constitution

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Please note the words No person at the beginig. Please note any person underlined and in bold print. This does not say Citizen.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Please note the words the accused above. This does not say the citizen.

Where the constitution means citizen it is spelled out as in below:

Article XV (Amendment 15 - Rights of Citizens to Vote)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

or as in below

Amendment XXIV (Amendment 24 - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections)
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Please note where our founders made a distinction in language between citizen and person. Please note in underline and bold print the words citizen in the above examples why do you suppose they took care to use this distinction in language? You are right in one respect though these rights do not extend beyond our borders how ever the United States has recomended these rights to all counties across the globe and has spent years of time and large amounts of treasure trying to extend these right to every one across the globe in their respective nations. The United States has been an ardent supporter of human rights across the globe isnce it inception. To deny this is neither patriotic, truth full, nor is it supporting the ideals of the United States. So keep calling your self a conservative you piece of crap!!

con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvədiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
   synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; More
   
   • 
     
     
   • noun

1. 1.
   a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
   synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; Ronald Reagan rolls in his grave every time you post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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.

Yeah, why would you guys just making it up, and having judges make it up... mean that somehow the document now means whatever you want?

No. Sorry.

The constitution has a specific meaning, and it can't just be "judicial precdented" away. Nor can you just 're-interpret" it to mean something it doesn't.

I don't care about your dumb judges, nor do I care about your interpretations. If you get to make it up, then so do I. 'relative truth' is a double edged blade. You start swinging that around, and you'll cut off your own head.

If everything is up to interpretation, then why do you claim Trump doesn't believe things based on facts? After all... he's just interpreting them differently than you. So shut up about it.

Everything that you know about the Constitution is someone's interpretation of it.

A plain-text reading of it is very clear - the majority of the bill of rights applies to everyone within the borders of the United States, not just to citizens.

This is universally agreed upon by anyone who understands what they're talking about.

I agree, but you forgot ti include "and territories". Puerto Rico, Samoa, and Guam are not "within our borders".