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

[dblack]

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.

Because a government empowered to strip people of their rights based on their 'papers' is a threat to everyone. Most especially its own citizens.

What "rights" do foreigners residing on foreign soil have in America?

All of our inalieanable rights exist independent of who we are or where we reside.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

The constitution by way of endowing rights is a restriction of/on authority, in other words, anyone sitting on the bench in a courtroom that is governed by American jurisdiction is beholden to any and all restrictions of the constitution, he/she is not permitted under any circumstances to violate that authority for any reason, it does not matter what type of case he she is presiding over, the rule of constitutional law is always the same for the court.

 

[NightFox]

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."

The court has ruled otherwise, the probable cause stems from the fact that in order to maintain the safety and security of the traveling public as well as enforce laws relative to contraband that reasonable administrative searches and seizures may be conducted by appropriate agencies, the reasoning underlying that "probable cause" stems from the fact that it has been demonstrated in the past that people attempt to sneak weapons, drugs, etc.., aboard airplanes and thus it reasonable to assume that anybody getting on board is potentially doing just that. IMHO it's wobbly but there really is no other way it would work in practice without a radical alteration of the current establishment.

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.

Yeah thanks but I'm quite capable of formulating my arguments without you attempting to replace them with straw men......

As far as your argument goes, it's difficult to see what it really is since you seem to be unable to maintain any consistency. First it was a legal one, now it's morphed into a philosophical one.

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.

You need to do some more homework on the breadth of libertarian philosophy because based on this assertion your understanding of it is very simplistic.

Why are you attacking me like a fucking pit bull.

Nobody is "attacking you" , I disagree with some of your assertions and have posted a counter argument based on reason and evidence, if you can't handle disagreement then you might as well be a "wackadoodle liberal" since by and large that's their modus operandi.

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.

Okay but your basis appears to be flawed since the applicability of Constitutionally Protected rights isn't the underlying justification for the Trump EO, there are two factors which make this EO legally sound, one is that the authority exercised by the Executive is justified as it was granted by the Legislature through standing Immigration Law and that said law is Constitutionally justified via authority granted to Congress is Article I, section 8 and two those persons that were detained as a result of this EO were foreign nationals that were explicitly barred entry, which means that legally they are not on U.S. Soil and thus don't enjoy Constitutional Protections.

Well the Constitution maybe applies but it's irrelevant... how's that?

Honestly, not any better, if it applies it's relevant.

I don't know any other way to articulate my argument.!

Maybe it's because your premise is unsound, perhaps it's time to rethink it.

 

[Boss]

The court has ruled otherwise, the probable cause stems from the fact that in order to maintain the safety and security of the traveling public as well as enforce laws relative to contraband that reasonable administrative searches and seizures may be conducted by appropriate agencies, the reasoning underlying that "probable cause" stems from the fact that it has been demonstrated in the past that people attempt to sneak weapons, drugs, etc.., aboard airplanes and thus it reasonable to assume that anybody getting on board is potentially doing just that. IMHO it's wobbly but there really is no other way it would work in practice without a radical alteration of the current establishment.

Just as I predicted:
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.

I fully understand the court rulings and the reasons for deeming "reasonable cause" and that's not debatable. It does establish my point that our Constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations and restrictions. They are not absolute in all circumstances and this is one example.

Yeah thanks but I'm quite capable of formulating my arguments without you attempting to replace them with straw men......

But what you are doing is establishing an argument against a point that wasn't made. We both agree on this and make the same argument but you take umbrage with the way I phrased something, which I readily admit, may be responsible for triggering your response. While I can appreciate your zeal to want to attack and defend the Constitution, I think it's a bit wasted on a devout Constitutional Conservative as opposed to a radical left-wing idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution, and frankly, does not give two shits about the Constitution unless it can be exploited to promote their tropes.

Okay but your basis appears to be flawed since the applicability of Constitutionally Protected rights isn't the underlying justification for the Trump EO, there are two factors which make this EO legally sound, one is that the authority exercised by the Executive is justified as it was granted by the Legislature through standing Immigration Law and that said law is Constitutionally justified via authority granted to Congress is Article I, section 8 and two those persons that were detained as a result of this EO were foreign nationals that were explicitly barred entry, which means that legally they are not on U.S. Soil and thus don't enjoy Constitutional Protections.

I agree.

 

[Boss]

Okay but your basis appears to be flawed since the applicability of Constitutionally Protected rights isn't the underlying justification for the Trump EO...

Well the Constitution maybe applies but it's irrelevant... how's that?

Honestly, not any better, if it applies it's relevant.

You just made the fucking case that it doesn't apply... it's not the justification! Then you want to jump back to attack mode and claim that it DOES apply!

The idiot left is out there trying to claim that Trump's EO violates Constitutional rights... AS YOU SAID.... It is not the underlying justification.... it doesn't matter... it's not applicable.... it doesn't apply.... it's irrelevant! We're both saying the same goddamn thing man!

Why are you attacking me?

 

[NightFox]

The court has ruled otherwise, the probable cause stems from the fact that in order to maintain the safety and security of the traveling public as well as enforce laws relative to contraband that reasonable administrative searches and seizures may be conducted by appropriate agencies, the reasoning underlying that "probable cause" stems from the fact that it has been demonstrated in the past that people attempt to sneak weapons, drugs, etc.., aboard airplanes and thus it reasonable to assume that anybody getting on board is potentially doing just that. IMHO it's wobbly but there really is no other way it would work in practice without a radical alteration of the current establishment.

Just as I predicted:
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.

Perhaps you should read of the rest of what I posted since I did bother to explain the reasoning behind the decision and nowhere in that explanation did I include "but it's legal blah, blah, blah" , so following up your straw man with a hasty generalization leads us right back to where we began, in informal fallacy country.

I fully understand the court rulings and the reasons for deeming "reasonable cause" and that's not debatable.

Okay, next time perhaps you'll share that right off the bat and save us from having to travel such a circuitous route.

It does establish my point that our Constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations and restrictions. They are not absolute in all circumstances and this is one example.

I never put forward the argument that they weren't subject to certain limitations and restrictions.

But what you are doing is establishing an argument against a point that wasn't made.

You said "doesn't apply" , I took that to mean exactly what the definition of "doesn't apply" means to any reasonable person; which was that you believed the Constitutional could be suspended based on circumstance, which it cannot be without enormous ramifications to the rule of law, that has been my argument all along.

 

[NightFox]

Okay but your basis appears to be flawed since the applicability of Constitutionally Protected rights isn't the underlying justification for the Trump EO...

Well the Constitution maybe applies but it's irrelevant... how's that?

Honestly, not any better, if it applies it's relevant.

You just made the fucking case that it doesn't apply...

Ummm.. yeah, Allow me to refresh your memory, your original argument was "The 4th Amendment doesn't even apply when you ARE a citizen coming back from abroad." and after much deliberation you've apparently modified that to "it's irrelevant", neither of which is accurate nor anything resembling me arguing that "it doesn't apply". Where I said it doesn't apply is in the case of a foreign national that's been explicitly barred entry, in reference to the justification for the Trump EO, see the difference?

Why are you attacking me?

Because .... I'm just a prick that likes "attacking" innocent pedestrians on the Internet by disagreeing with their arguments yet somehow I still manage to live with myself.

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." -- Luke 23:34

 

[kaz]

They weren't deprived of anything, the people in question were barred entry which isn't a Constitutionally Protected right, if you're barred entry you're not legally on U.S. Soil so for lack of a better phrase you're in "International Waters" a situation which (If I'm not mistaken) affords them international treaty protections but nothing with respect to the U.S. Constitution.

IMHO The left's argument regarding this EO is incredibly specious since it was the Obama Administration that put together the list of 7 Nations and they did it for a very good reason; the Nations on that list either do not have the systems in place or have proven to be unwilling to properly screen travelers and share that screening information with the United States (they're also historically origination points for radical Islamic Terrorist and/or state sponsors of Terrorism) which makes them a PERFECT origination point for those wishing to commit violence and other criminal acts on U.S. Soil. The only reason the Obama Administration didn't issue the same EO that Trump did was they didn't want to face the political backlash from their own party, in other words, they knowing allowed this incredibly risky situation to continue unabated for political reasons.

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

Which part about not doing anything about Nations that his own administration determined were not only inadequately screening and sharing said screening of travelers to the United States but are also historical origination points for radical IslamicTerrorists and/or State Sponsors of Terrorism other than making a list of them didn't you understand?

Their screening was strengthened, and they disallowed Brits and other friendly Nation's citizens from coming without going through the visa process if they were duel citizens from those countries, they stopped any Brit or friendly country citizens from coming here if they had traveled to any of those countries within the past 6 years, from coming here on a Visa Waiver, and made them go through the 18 month to 2 year plus, visa vetting process.

WHAT did Trump do to make us safer? He extended the process for 90 days? WOW! Did he tell us how they were going to strengthen the vetting process, or what they were going to do to make it stronger during those 90 days or even some sort of plan and why those 90 days was going to make a difference on these people?

and again, 15 of the 19 Sept 11th terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and the San Bernadino wife was from Pakistan, and neither of those two countries were put on President Trump's ban.....and please, none of this blame Obama for Trump's fiasco.

It was hasty, it was ill advised and ill planned, and meant to cause chaos, for the ratings.....

Learn the difference in "dual "and "duel" lest you appear to be an ignorant troll. Oh, never mind! You are!

Boy you are on a real roll....who would have thunk you would post something so empty, just to get your post count up? You're fitting right in with rest of your RW counterparts...

You're a liar with no moral compass. I see far more leftists doing spelling check posts than anyone else and I've never seen you stand up to one of them as I stood up for you against someone I usually agree with. I consistently object to all spell check trolling. Your indignation is feigned. Vow to with me object to all spell check trolls and not make it another partisan issue for you as everything else is

 

[bendog]

Kaz, the 14th only applies to "persons." That has always required a living breathing human.

Roe, however, does say that society has a interest in protecting "life." Bork (and I think Scalia) would argue that no individual has any right to privacy or an inherent right to do what they want with their own body. Taken literally, that would mean some god forsaken place like Kansas could ban contraception or even Viagra, because sex is for making babies not sinful lust. We shall see.

Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law. What law has a woman committed to lose control over her own body by the feds?

If you don't want an abortion, Kaz, I suggest you don't get one, but the decision is up to you .... at least for now.

 

[NightFox]

What was this "incredibly dangerous situation" that Obama left us in?

Which part about not doing anything about Nations that his own administration determined were not only inadequately screening and sharing said screening of travelers to the United States but are also historical origination points for radical IslamicTerrorists and/or State Sponsors of Terrorism other than making a list of them didn't you understand?

Their screening was strengthened, and they disallowed Brits and other friendly Nation's citizens from coming without going through the visa process if they were duel citizens from those countries, they stopped any Brit or friendly country citizens from coming here if they had traveled to any of those countries within the past 6 years, from coming here on a Visa Waiver, and made them go through the 18 month to 2 year plus, visa vetting process.

WHAT did Trump do to make us safer? He extended the process for 90 days? WOW! Did he tell us how they were going to strengthen the vetting process, or what they were going to do to make it stronger during those 90 days or even some sort of plan and why those 90 days was going to make a difference on these people?

and again, 15 of the 19 Sept 11th terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and the San Bernadino wife was from Pakistan, and neither of those two countries were put on President Trump's ban.....and please, none of this blame Obama for Trump's fiasco.

It was hasty, it was ill advised and ill planned, and meant to cause chaos, for the ratings.....

Learn the difference in "dual "and "duel" lest you appear to be an ignorant troll. Oh, never mind! You are!

Boy you are on a real roll....who would have thunk you would post something so empty, just to get your post count up? You're fitting right in with rest of your RW counterparts...

You're a liar with no moral compass. I see far more leftists doing spelling check posts than anyone else and I've never seen you stand up to one of them as I stood up for you against someone I usually agree with. I consistently object to all spell check trolling. Your indignation is feigned. Vow to with me object to all spell check trolls and not make it another partisan issue for you as everything else is

Amen Reverend... I hereby "vow to with you object to all spell check trolls".


BTW you forgot the period at the end of your last sentence, what are you? some kind of right wing nutjob?

" Transcendence. I guess that was Necro speak for 'Get the fuck off our ship and make it forever.' Fine by me." -- Richard B. Riddick, Riddick

 

[there4eyeM]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

 

[kaz]

Kaz, the 14th only applies to "persons." That has always required a living breathing human.

Roe, however, does say that society has a interest in protecting "life." Bork (and I think Scalia) would argue that no individual has any right to privacy or an inherent right to do what they want with their own body. Taken literally, that would mean some god forsaken place like Kansas could ban contraception or even Viagra, because sex is for making babies not sinful lust. We shall see.

Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law. What law has a woman committed to lose control over her own body by the feds?

If you don't want an abortion, Kaz, I suggest you don't get one, but the decision is up to you .... at least for now.

Democrats are so stupid it's funny. Read the blue. I am pro-choice, Holmes

 

[there4eyeM]

Conception is an already living sperm joining with an already living egg (that in fact has been living for a long time). The two become one and continue with the biological process that began billions of years ago.

 

[dblack]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

Inalienable rights don't come from 'some vague place'. They are an inherent byproduct of free will.

But you're right, many of the people here who would reject the notion that rights are a grant from government, seem to be more than willing to treat them way when it suits them.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...an inherent biproduct(sic) of free will..." is not vague?

"Inalienable rights" is wording that expresses the desire to be accepted as fact. If true, it would not need stating. In any case, concepts represented by such nouns as 'right' and terms as 'free will', 'inalienable', etc., are human creations. They are words that represent ideas, thoughts, aspirations. They are not something that exist objectively outside the human mind. Dealing with them otherwise involves faith, not fact.
"We believe these things (to be self evident)..."

 

[kaz]

Which part about not doing anything about Nations that his own administration determined were not only inadequately screening and sharing said screening of travelers to the United States but are also historical origination points for radical IslamicTerrorists and/or State Sponsors of Terrorism other than making a list of them didn't you understand?

Their screening was strengthened, and they disallowed Brits and other friendly Nation's citizens from coming without going through the visa process if they were duel citizens from those countries, they stopped any Brit or friendly country citizens from coming here if they had traveled to any of those countries within the past 6 years, from coming here on a Visa Waiver, and made them go through the 18 month to 2 year plus, visa vetting process.

WHAT did Trump do to make us safer? He extended the process for 90 days? WOW! Did he tell us how they were going to strengthen the vetting process, or what they were going to do to make it stronger during those 90 days or even some sort of plan and why those 90 days was going to make a difference on these people?

and again, 15 of the 19 Sept 11th terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, and the San Bernadino wife was from Pakistan, and neither of those two countries were put on President Trump's ban.....and please, none of this blame Obama for Trump's fiasco.

It was hasty, it was ill advised and ill planned, and meant to cause chaos, for the ratings.....

Learn the difference in "dual "and "duel" lest you appear to be an ignorant troll. Oh, never mind! You are!

Boy you are on a real roll....who would have thunk you would post something so empty, just to get your post count up? You're fitting right in with rest of your RW counterparts...

You're a liar with no moral compass. I see far more leftists doing spelling check posts than anyone else and I've never seen you stand up to one of them as I stood up for you against someone I usually agree with. I consistently object to all spell check trolling. Your indignation is feigned. Vow to with me object to all spell check trolls and not make it another partisan issue for you as everything else is

Amen Reverend... I hereby "vow to with you object to all spell check trolls".


BTW you forgot the period at the end of your last sentence, what are you? some kind of right wing nutjob?

" Transcendence. I guess that was Necro speak for 'Get the fuck off our ship and make it forever.' Fine by me." -- Richard B. Riddick, Riddick

LOL. Just so you know, the period at the end of a post is optional. I never put one because it is optional. It's like when you bullet a list.

Having spent years in management consulting, they drill into us as writers that every pixel that doesn't work for you works against you.

Now arguing grammar, that's not trolling, lol. Good job!

 

[bendog]

Odd that some who claim 'rights' come from some vague place in the universe and are ours permanently also say that people in other countries don't have those 'rights'. How do these 'rights' know to whom they apply?

I'm not a democrat, and really couldn't care less whether you are or aren't pro choice, but perhaps you might explain what you meant by "Life, liberty and property cannot be infringed on by the Federal government without due process of law." What law causes a woman to lose control over her own body by the feds? Or how has the fed govt taken control of women's bodies?

 

[Boss]

The court has ruled otherwise, the probable cause stems from the fact that in order to maintain the safety and security of the traveling public as well as enforce laws relative to contraband that reasonable administrative searches and seizures may be conducted by appropriate agencies, the reasoning underlying that "probable cause" stems from the fact that it has been demonstrated in the past that people attempt to sneak weapons, drugs, etc.., aboard airplanes and thus it reasonable to assume that anybody getting on board is potentially doing just that. IMHO it's wobbly but there really is no other way it would work in practice without a radical alteration of the current establishment.

Just as I predicted:
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.

Perhaps you should read of the rest of what I posted since I did bother to explain the reasoning behind the decision and nowhere in that explanation did I include "but it's legal blah, blah, blah" , so following up your straw man with a hasty generalization leads us right back to where we began, in informal fallacy country.

I fully understand the court rulings and the reasons for deeming "reasonable cause" and that's not debatable.

Okay, next time perhaps you'll share that right off the bat and save us from having to travel such a circuitous route.

It does establish my point that our Constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations and restrictions. They are not absolute in all circumstances and this is one example.

I never put forward the argument that they weren't subject to certain limitations and restrictions.

But what you are doing is establishing an argument against a point that wasn't made.

You said "doesn't apply" , I took that to mean exactly what the definition of "doesn't apply" means to any reasonable person; which was that you believed the Constitutional could be suspended based on circumstance, which it cannot be without enormous ramifications to the rule of law, that has been my argument all along.

LMAO... I don't even need to post a reply because you're responding and then the next quote you post IS my reply to your response. We seem to be just a tad out of sync but we're arguing the same point. This is silly. You're just being silly. I don't see your point in that. Do you enjoy making yourself look goofy as fuck?

 

[dblack]

"...an inherent biproduct(sic) of free will..." is not vague?

"Inalienable rights" is wording that expresses the desire to be accepted as fact. If true, it would not need stating. In any case, concepts represented by such nouns as 'right' and terms as 'free will', 'inalienable', etc., are human creations. They are words that represent ideas, thoughts, aspirations. They are not something that exist objectively outside the human mind. Dealing with them otherwise involves faith, not fact.
"We believe these things (to be self evident)..."

It's not vague at all. But I suspect that you're conflating the basic concept of inherent freedoms (inalienable rights) with civil rights (those rights government attempts to protect). 'Inalienable rights' is just free will - the capacity of a human mind to think and make decisions. No one gives us free will, we're born with it. It's inherent to being conscious. But I've found most people who reject this really aren't interested in understanding it.

 

[NightFox]

LMAO... I don't even need to post a reply because you're responding and then the next quote you post IS my reply to your response. We seem to be just a tad out of sync but we're arguing the same point. This is silly. You're just being silly. I don't see your point in that. Do you enjoy making yourself look goofy as fuck?

Uh-Huh, whatever you say Hoss...

BTW when you're done with that doobie be sure and remember to pass it on down the line, I want to get high too.

"Hey, what was in that shit, man?" -- Pedro De Pacas, Cheech & Chong: Up in Smoke