Why does the left think the Constitution applies to non-Americans?

[Care4all]

So, none of righties are willing to show us where the Constitution says it doesn't apply to non-citizens on US soil.

Not every righty is an intellectual coward ... no, wait, all of them are.

No where in the constitution does it say it doesn't apply to Martians, or God, so what's your point?
If it's not specifically stated it isn't covered and non-citizens are not explicitly stated.

or a horse or a dog or an elephant....
The constitution uses the terms 'persons/(people) and citizens'...

No where does it mention protections for something from the Heavens....like Martians, or Creatures of the Earth like snakes or wolverines.

 

[MAfarmgirl]

It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.

That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.

And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.

It applies to any one on American soil, but non-citizens however do not have the right to vote, to hold a federal job, or run for political office.

Non-citizens who hold green cards may work for the Post Office, the other agencies of the federal government may have the same policy...

 

[Avatar4321]

It's ironic because they don't apply it to citizens

 

[Boss]

The 4th Amendment doesn't even apply when you ARE a citizen coming back from abroad. Doesn't matter what soil you're ******* on. Customs has the authority to check your bags and personal belongings without any reasonable cause or warrant whatsoever. If you're coming across the border they can search your vehicle. Even in you're traveling inside the US, the TSA can practically give you a proctology exam!

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitutions applies to Americans and LEGAL immigrants/tourists. This should be obvious.

It applies to any Thing, pursuant to our Constitution.

 

[Care4all]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

So, Obama had this plenary power as well, and you are now saying that his EO'S on immigrants was all constitutional?

 

[Boss]

So, Obama had this plenary power as well, and you are now saying that his EO'S on immigrants was all constitutional?

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This statute clearly grants plenary power. This is what plenary power is. When I say the president has plenary power, this is the statute which grants it.

You bring up "Obama's EOs on immigration" as if the plenary power is for presidential EOs on immigration... it's not. Read the statute. What does the president have specific plenary power to do? Does it say the president can authorize entry of thousands of refugees? No... it doesn't give him plenary power to do that. It involves immigration, it's an executive order by the president, but it doesn't meet the criteria of this statute.

Does that clear things up?

 

[NightFox]

The 4th Amendment doesn't even apply when you ARE a citizen coming back from abroad.

Ummm.. yeah it does apply, since the court ruled in 1973 that administrative searches and seizures by the TSA were allowed under the 4th Amendment; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", in so far as they met the standard for "reasonable". However this does not grant the TSA (or any other agency) the authority to conduct UNREASONABLE searches and seizures nor does it suspend the entirety of the 4th Amendment for any government agency at any place or time.

Constitutional amendments don't simply disappear from existence just because you walk into an airport, the conduct of government agencies must meet Constitutional standards at all times to the satisfaction of the judiciary.

 

[Boss]

The 4th Amendment doesn't even apply when you ARE a citizen coming back from abroad.

Ummm.. yeah it does apply, since the court ruled in 1973 that administrative searches and seizures by the TSA were allowed under the 4th Amendment; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", in so far as they met the standard for "reasonable". However this does not grant the TSA (or any other agency) the authority to conduct UNREASONABLE searches and seizures nor does it suspend the entirety of the 4th Amendment for any government agency at any place or time.

Constitutional amendments don't simply disappear from existence just because you walk into an airport, the conduct of government agencies must meet Constitutional standards at all times to the satisfaction of the judiciary.

The ONLY reason the TSA gets away with what it does is because air travel is voluntary. The court did not rule anything in 1973 on TSA because TSA didn't exist.

And again... whenever I am coming into the country from Mexico, the customs agent at the border does not have any "reasonable cause" to search my vehicle. It's legal because the courts have ruled it legal in spite of my constitutional rights. There are LOTS of rights the courts have ruled away that we're supposed to have. The unborn don't even have the basic right to live. They have the right to be protected against malpractice or homicide, their future inheritance (property) can be protected, but not their life. Native Americans, Asians and black people have had their rights usurped by the court as well. So don't give me any argument on the court rulings when it comes to our rights.

 

[NightFox]

The 4th Amendment doesn't even apply when you ARE a citizen coming back from abroad.

Ummm.. yeah it does apply, since the court ruled in 1973 that administrative searches and seizures by the TSA were allowed under the 4th Amendment; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", in so far as they met the standard for "reasonable". However this does not grant the TSA (or any other agency) the authority to conduct UNREASONABLE searches and seizures nor does it suspend the entirety of the 4th Amendment for any government agency at any place or time.

Constitutional amendments don't simply disappear from existence just because you walk into an airport, the conduct of government agencies must meet Constitutional standards at all times to the satisfaction of the judiciary.

The ONLY reason the TSA gets away with what it does is because air travel is voluntary. The court did not rule anything in 1973 on TSA because TSA didn't exist.

Umm.. yeah The court ruling U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 in 1973 is the basis for the authority that the TSA uses to conduct the searches and seizures that it does right now , the point was that your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply" is inaccurate since the 4th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) always applies to U.S. Citizens, foreign nationals on U.S. Soil and government since if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

And again... whenever I am coming into the country from Mexico, the customs agent at the border does not have any "reasonable cause" to search my vehicle.

According to the judiciary they do have a "reasonable cause", if they conduct an unreasonable search and seizure they can be held accountable by the judiciary under the 4th Amendment, thus the 4th Amendment does still apply.

It's legal because the courts have ruled it legal in spite of my constitutional rights. There are LOTS of rights the courts have ruled away that we're supposed to have.

Constitutional rights your "supposed to have" according to whom? You? I agree that warped judicial interpretations of the Constitution have weathered away the liberty it was designed to protect but what other institution in our Republic would you suppose should make those determinations?

There is no such thing as "Constitutional Rights", there are only rights and those rights aren't endowed by the Constitution the Constitution was only an imperfect mechanism design in an attempt to protect those rights from usurpation by government and empower government to protect those rights from abuse by other citizens but at the end of the day it's only a piece of paper with words on it and those words can be twisted to mean whatever those in power want them to mean (thus the implementation of "checks and balances"). However there isn't a case where protections simply get "suspended" (i.e. such and such amendment "doesn't apply" ) by the Courts since such a thing would be tantamount to ruling that the rule of law was no longer in force and that the Constitution itself is invalid.

 

[Correll]

I keep hearing this asinine argument from the left and it drives me nuts. Where in the hell do they get this concept that our Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone in the world and not just American citizens? Over and over, we come up on this issue of constitutionality and they consistently want to apply it to people who aren't subject to it. We cannot enforce our Constitution worldwide so we can't apply it that way. It's really as simple as that.

Then they want to make this silly argument about being "on American soil" ...as if, a radical jihadist could parachute into the country and as soon as his feet hits the ground he has instantaneous constitutional rights! That's not how it works. We are a humane nation who believes in basic human rights for everyone, and so we believe in treating people in accordance with basic human decency but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights. It is only the citizens of the United States who are protected by the Constitution. And guess what else? That's not ALWAYS an absolute!

Many of our constitutional rights have limitations and restrictions. If an American citizen travels to Mexico and returns, they aren't protected by the 4th Amendment against being searched and having property seized. We suspend that right at the border for national security reasons. We've determined that is "reasonable" and so the Amendment doesn't apply. And that's for an American citizen who IS protected by the Constitution!

There is nothing unconstitutional about Trump's executive order on restricting entry into the US. The President has plenary power granted under the Constitution and many presidents before him have used precisely the same plenary power to do the same thing. It's not a "Muslim ban" but guess what else? He's within his authority to make it one if he wants to! There is no restriction on this, the President has plenary power and he can make this effective for any country or ALL countries if he so chooses. He can make it against a specific religion... he can make it against people with red hair! There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him in any way with this. You may not LIKE it... but he has that authority under the Constitution.

I think it is because the left thinks that immigration is a natural right, which automatically makes them a citizen.

they keep repeating that we are a "Nation of Immigrants" as a way to break down rules and borders but in reality all nations are made up of immigrants at some point, and all countries reserve the right to put the needs of their citizens first and the right to not let their country dissolve by voluntarily tying their own hands behind their own back. These people are truly confused. many of them are so well meaning but the ones behind this Idea would love to see the US dissapear as a world power completely.

I think very few of them are well meaning.

 

[Correll]

I think you will find that a particular city may not be enforcing certain laws, but they have never granted actual sanctuary

Knock it off....parsing words doesn't change what they are doing. When ICE asks for an illegal incarcerated for another crime, these cities are releasing the illegal rather than hand him over. You won't have a problem with that apparently until you're raped or murdered by a piece of shit who would otherwise have been deported.

Statistics show that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, commit far fewer crimes than do our citizens

I call bullshit on those stats.

ON so many levels.

 

[Boss]

Umm.. yeah The court ruling U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 in 1973 is the basis for the authority that the TSA uses to conduct the searches and seizures that it does right now , the point was that your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply" is inaccurate since the 4th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) always applies to U.S. Citizens, foreign nationals on U.S. Soil and government since if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

I'm not arguing the legal basis of the TSA. It's obvious the TSA must be a legal entity or it wouldn't ******* exist, would it? So it'd be kind of stupid of me to argue the TSA is illegal or unconstitutional.

And technically, by that extension, you can also claim the 4th Amendment applies. But the fact remains, every day in America, at every single airport in the country, people's right to be secure in their property is breached without probable cause. The courts have made that "okay" and we've applied a stamp of approval on it. This is the case with MANY of our rights. There are restrictions and limitations. Does a person in prison have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? No, that would be ridiculous... they've forfeited that right by being convicted. Free speech-- you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.... Freedom of religious expression-- you can't throw virgins into volcanoes! Do I need to give you MORE examples of how our freedoms are restricted and limited by reasonable regulations?

 

[NightFox]

Umm.. yeah The court ruling U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 in 1973 is the basis for the authority that the TSA uses to conduct the searches and seizures that it does right now , the point was that your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply" is inaccurate since the 4th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) always applies to U.S. Citizens, foreign nationals on U.S. Soil and government since if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

I'm not arguing the legal basis of the TSA. It's obvious the TSA must be a legal entity or it wouldn't ******* exist, would it? So it'd be kind of stupid of me to argue the TSA is illegal or unconstitutional.

I know, you're attempting to argue that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to what the TSA does.

And technically, by that extension, you can also claim the 4th Amendment applies. But the fact remains, every day in America, at every single airport in the country, people's right to be secure in their property is breached without probable cause.

I didn't originate the claim, the court did as illustrated by the decision I cited earlier, perhaps you should read it and step back and consider how the rule of law actually functions and why it's application must be uniform for it to exist.

The courts have made that "okay" and we've applied a stamp of approval on it. This is the case with MANY of our rights. There are restrictions and limitations. Does a person in prison have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? No, that would be ridiculous... they've forfeited that right by being convicted. Free speech-- you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.... Freedom of religious expression-- you can't throw virgins into volcanoes! Do I need to give you MORE examples of how our freedoms are restricted and limited by reasonable regulations?

How does any of that support your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply"? You're going off on a wholly different tangent here, either as means of deflecting from the fact that you were wrong or you don't really understand the ramifications and absurdity of your own claims, which is it?

 

[Boss]

Umm.. yeah The court ruling U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 in 1973 is the basis for the authority that the TSA uses to conduct the searches and seizures that it does right now , the point was that your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply" is inaccurate since the 4th Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) always applies to U.S. Citizens, foreign nationals on U.S. Soil and government since if that wasn't the case it wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

I'm not arguing the legal basis of the TSA. It's obvious the TSA must be a legal entity or it wouldn't ******* exist, would it? So it'd be kind of stupid of me to argue the TSA is illegal or unconstitutional.

I know, you're attempting to argue that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to what the TSA does.

And technically, by that extension, you can also claim the 4th Amendment applies. But the fact remains, every day in America, at every single airport in the country, people's right to be secure in their property is breached without probable cause.

I didn't originate the claim, the court did as illustrated by the decision I cited earlier, perhaps you should read it and step back and consider how the rule of law actually functions and why it's application must be uniform for it to exist.

The courts have made that "okay" and we've applied a stamp of approval on it. This is the case with MANY of our rights. There are restrictions and limitations. Does a person in prison have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? No, that would be ridiculous... they've forfeited that right by being convicted. Free speech-- you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.... Freedom of religious expression-- you can't throw virgins into volcanoes! Do I need to give you MORE examples of how our freedoms are restricted and limited by reasonable regulations?

How does any of that support your assertion that the 4th Amendment "doesn't apply"? You're going off on a wholly different tangent here, either as means of deflecting from the fact that you were wrong or you don't really understand the ramifications and absurdity of your own claims, which is it?

I think what's the matter is you misunderstood me and now you want to claim I was "wrong" in order to keep from admitting you misunderstood me. If I'm not mistaken, we're both from the political right perspective. Are you arguing that Trump's EO is a violation of the Constitution? I'm not. The argument I am making is to demonstrate that our Constitution doesn't apply in some cases. That may strike some kind of nerve with you, maybe there is a better way I could state that to keep you from feeling violated, but the point remains... your Constitutional rights are not absolute always. In fact, the very reason for the SCOTUS is to determine when certain rights of some outweigh certain rights of others.

The fact that SCOTUS "deems" something, makes it Constitutional by law. That doesn't mean it's correct. For years, slaves were deemed property... was that correct? It WAS Constitutional by law.

 

[Conservative65]

Case in point, some of them think the Second is speaking of only muskets.

Anyone that thinks general welfare means social welfare is confused. Why wouldn't they be confused on the 2nd?

 

[Conservative65]

It's because the Constitution doesn't say it applies only to citizens. It applies to everyone in the USA.

That is, the lefties actually follow the Constitution, and the righties don't.

And, looking at this thread, the righties here are all very proud of not following the Constitution.

You mean like when lefties support all sorts of things for which the Constitution doesn't say the federal government has the authority to do? When you can show me the words "marriage", "abortion", "food stamps", "government housing", "healthcare", etc. in the Constitution, you can claim you follow it.

 

[Conservative65]

They don't really understand what the Constitution is. They know it's old and white racist homophobes wrote it but it's a living breathing document if they disagree with an aspect of it and written in stone if they agree.

They call it a living, breathing document when they want to expand the power of government to do what the Constitution doesn't allow but strictly apply it when it's something they oppose.

 

[NightFox]

I think what's the matter is you misunderstood me and now you want to claim I was "wrong" in order to keep from admitting you misunderstood me.

Okay, then explain to me what your definition of "doesn't apply" is, since apparently it's radically different from mine.

If I'm not mistaken, we're both from the political right perspective.

You're mistaken, as a libertarian neither the right nor the left "perspective" dictate my philosophical view points, my evaluation of public policy or my political inclinations, basically if I had my way, government would fit inside a 7-11 and operate on an annual budget less than what it takes to power a 100-watt light bulb.

Are you arguing that Trump's EO is a violation of the Constitution? I'm not.

Where the heck did you get that impression? Truth be told, I've argued exactly the opposite but Trumps EO has nothing to do with the question of the uniform application of the Constitution.

The argument I am making is to demonstrate that our Constitution doesn't apply in some cases. That may strike some kind of nerve with you, maybe there is a better way I could state that to keep you from feeling violated, but the point remains... your Constitutional rights are not absolute always. In fact, the very reason for the SCOTUS is to determine when certain rights of some outweigh certain rights of others.

That's the problem with your argument, the Constitution ALWAYS applies in the cases currently under discussion, you just apparently take umbrage with the way the judiciary interprets that application under certain circumstances.

Fact of the matter is, I not only share your concerns with the way the Constitution has been interpreted by the judiciary and the effect that it has had on the erosion of individual liberty, I take them to the extreme since under my world view the human fallibility that spawns such egregious violations of life, liberty and property would either cease to exist or be so minimal as to represent no more than a minor annoyance. Sadly the bulk of humanity doesn't seem to be yet capable of contemplating an existence without some morally unaccountable, based in the use of force, huge criminal organization lording over it and thus we are stuck with the liberty devouring, Nation State system and the highly fallible judiciary that goes along with it.

 

[Boss]

Okay, then explain to me what your definition of "doesn't apply" is, since apparently it's radically different from mine.

Like I said, perhaps there is a more appropriate way to put it? The fact remains, when you are entering the country from abroad, doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, the customs agents have the authority to search your property regardless of what the 4th Amendment says. First of all, they stop and detain you without "probable cause."

Now you will say, oh but it's LEGAL... the courts ruled, blah blah blah. That's not my argument. Of course it's legal, of course the courts ruled.

You're mistaken, as a libertarian neither the right nor the left "perspective" dictate my philosophical view points, my evaluation of public policy or my political inclinations, basically if I had my way, government would fit inside a 7-11 and operate on an annual budget less than what it takes to power a 100-watt light bulb.

If you're libertarian, you're on the right side of the political spectrum. You can think of yourself any way you please but that's what libertarian is. I'm also libertarian-leaning and a constitutional conservative who believes in smaller, limited government. So, like I said, we are pretty much on the same page. Why are you attacking me like a ******* pit bull, as if I am some wackadoodle liberal?

Where the heck did you get that impression? Truth be told, I've argued exactly the opposite but Trumps EO has nothing to do with the question of the uniform application of the Constitution.

And that is my argument too, that's why I say, I think you've misunderstood something.

That's the problem with your argument, the Constitution ALWAYS applies in the cases currently under discussion, you just apparently take umbrage with the way the judiciary interprets that application under certain circumstances.

Well the Constitution maybe applies but it's irrelevant... how's that? I don't know any other way to articulate my argument. When a man comes up to me and says, "I need for you to open your bag and let me look in it." That is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. BUT... IF that man happens to be a customs agent at the border, the situation is not the same. You have all these left-wing "constitutional scholars" out there claiming that we're violating Constitutional rights that are not being violated. Constitutional rights are not absolute in all circumstances.... IF they were, prisoners could own guns!