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

[dblack]

The Constitution doesn't 'apply' to individuals at all.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Nice rant.

Now if only the last century of legal decisions agreed with you.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

So, is the Constitution a "living and breathing document", or not?

How is the last century relevant to today from a "progressive" point of view?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Nice rant.

Now if only the last century of legal decisions agreed with you.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

The opinion of four contemporary federal judges out of hundreds constitutes the last century of legal decisions in your mind? Or were you joking?

However ...

“I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter," said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School. But "when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”

...The countries are a hot bed of terrorism that's has spread across the globe. The judge offered an opinion, not a fact. Syria is a country, not a religion.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Never realized you were such a moron
Most of your posts are pretty good

You think someone from France is not protected by Constitutional rights if they are visiting America?
Can you search their room without a warrant? Can you lock them up without a trial? Can you subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[NightFox]

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.

Nice rant.

Now if only the last century of legal decisions agreed with you.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

So, is the Constitution a "living and breathing document", or not?

That's not the question in this case, since
"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." -- James Madison aka "The Father of the Constitution"

This question of the application of Constitutional Protections applying to non-citizens was hotly debated early in the history of the Republic surrounding the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts with the Federalists arguing against Constitutional Protections for foreign nationals and the Democratic-Republicans (Madison among them) arguing for them, the Democratic-Republicans won the argument with the defeat of Adams by Jefferson and the repeal of the Acts (and Jefferson's pardoning of all those held under them along with Congress agreeing to pay their fines).

The courts have since affirmed the view advocated by Madison, Jefferson and the rest of the Democratic-Republicans so IMHO it's not really a case of activist interpretation by the courts (i.e. "living and breathing document") since a good portion of the key framers were clearly in the YES column for the application of (certain) Constitutional Protections to foreign nationals on US Soil.

 

[Boss]

Never realized you were such a moron
Most of your posts are pretty good

You think someone from France is not protected by Constitutional rights if they are visiting America?
Can you search their room without a warrant? Can you lock them up without a trial? Can you subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

You can stop them at the airport and send them back home.

The TSA can certainly check their luggage and baggage without a warrant.

At any point during their visit, you can demand they leave immediately.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Nice rant.

Now if only the last century of legal decisions agreed with you.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

So, is the Constitution a "living and breathing document", or not?

That's not the question in this case, since
"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." -- James Madison aka "The Father of the Constitution"

This question of the application of Constitutional Protections applying to non-citizens was hotly debated early in the history of the Republic surrounding the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts with the Federalists arguing against Constitutional Protections for foreign nationals and the Democratic-Republicans (Madison among them) arguing for them, the Democratic-Republicans won the argument with the defeat of Adams by Jefferson and the repeal of the Acts (and Jefferson's pardoning of all those held under them along with Congress agreeing to pay their fines).

The courts have since affirmed the view advocated by Madison, Jefferson and the rest of the Democratic-Republicans so IMHO it's not really a case of activist interpretation by the courts (i.e. "living and breathing document") since a good portion of the key framers were clearly in the YES column for the application of (certain) Constitutional Protections to foreign nationals on US Soil.

Maybe instead of quoting Madison ....you can point to a single legal decision that says non-citizens are not entitled to Constitutional rights

 

[rightwinger]

Never realized you were such a moron
Most of your posts are pretty good

You think someone from France is not protected by Constitutional rights if they are visiting America?
Can you search their room without a warrant? Can you lock them up without a trial? Can you subject them to cruel and unusual punishment?

You can stop them at the airport and send them back home.

The TSA can certainly check their luggage and baggage without a warrant.

At any point during their visit, you can demand they leave immediately.

Having nothing to do with their Constitutional protections

 

[Boss]

Maybe instead of quoting Madison ....you can point to a single legal decision that says non-citizens are not entitled to Constitutional rights

It's simple. We cannot enforce the Constitution in other countries. We have no jurisdiction. Do you think we protect freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia? The Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't in our country. People who are in the process of entering our country are not "in our country" until we've approved their entry. You're not IN Disneyland while standing on Disney property waiting to enter.

There have been rulings about foreign nationals. They do have constitutional rights. An illegal alien is not a foreign national, they are trespassers.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The President has plenary power under the Constitution.

Oh really? Cite the Article, Section and Clause of that Constitutionally granted PLENARY power then!

Plenary power
Complete power over a particular area with no limitations.
~~ Plenary power ~~

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe instead of quoting Madison ....you can point to a single legal decision that says non-citizens are not entitled to Constitutional rights

It's simple. We cannot enforce the Constitution in other countries. We have no jurisdiction. Do you think we protect freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia? The Constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't in our country. People who are in the process of entering our country are not "in our country" until we've approved their entry. You're not IN Disneyland while standing on Disney property waiting to enter.

There have been rulings about foreign nationals. They do have constitutional rights. An illegal alien is not a foreign national, they are trespassers.

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

 

[Timmy]

The right claims that they love the constitution but they don't even realize that it doesn't just cover citizens. ?

Not in the same way, Dimmy.


Alienage Classifications and the Equal Protection Clause
The Constitution affords protection to citizens in ways that it doesn't for non-citizens. The privileges and immunities clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of CITIZENS of the United States." Citizenship is also a prerequisite for voting under the 15th and 19th Amendments as for election to Congress or the Presidency.

There are parts to the con that specifically mention citizens , that is true .

But if you read the first page of this thread it's a circle jerk of idiot righties acting as if you can do anything you want to non citizens because they lack constitutional protections.

 

[Boss]

Ummmm...No shit Sherlock

Has nothing to do with your ridiculous OP

Aside from the minor technicality that "foreign nationals" are considered "Americans" for the sake of Constitutionality, there is nothing whatsoever ridiculous about the OP.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

Well, let's be clear... many on the left don't really "understand" much of anything... they act on sheer emotion and they wait to find out how they are supposed to feel about things. They rely on geniuses like Ashton Kutcher to tell them what they think. They respond to the emotive bleats of people like Meryl Streep. Let's face it, they are not the sharpest crayons in the box.

I thought MTV and The Kardashians we're doing most of the Liberal programming these days...hahaha

 

[Boss]

I thought MTV and The Kardashians we're doing most of the Liberal programming these days...hahaha

No, apparently, Ashton Kutcher is who they genuflect toward for political wisdom these days. I guess James Franco was too stoned.

 

[jc456]

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 when the Creator endowed us with certain inalienable rights, he was only referring to American citizens?

the constitution was. you should read up,

 

[jc456]

the constitution applies to everyone on our soil....do some reading up on it.

HINT-this is why we had to set up GITMO, off our soil....

Yes and no, the Supreme Court has held for more than a century that non-citizens on US soil are entitled to Constitutional Protections that are not expressly reserved for Citizens, the primary application of which has been sourced in the 14th Amendment's "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" and the 5th Amendments "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in other words foreign nationals on American Soil are "persons" and thus entitled to Constitutional Protections explicitly set aside for "person" (but not those explicitly set aside for "citizen"). Things get a little foggier where the Constitution refers to protections set aside for "the people" though such as First and Fourth Amendment protections although the court has tended to interpret those protections to also apply to non-citizens on US Soil as well.

Of course this wouldn't apply to foreign nationals that have been explicitly barred entry since they aren't legally on American Soil anyways.

these goofs think the constitution is for the world. ask them.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nice rant.

Now if only the last century of legal decisions agreed with you.

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

The opinion of four contemporary federal judges out of hundreds constitutes the last century of legal decisions in your mind? Or were you joking?

However ...

“I’m not arguing the Constitution gives each person a right to enter," said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of immigration law at Fordham University Law School. But "when the U.S. government establishes a preferred religion, it violates the Constitution.”

...The countries are a hot bed of terrorism that's has spread across the globe. The judge offered an opinion, not a fact. Syria is a country, not a religion.

sorry, but the constitution was written under christian values. Let's don't mislead people here. It's why our currency states "in god we trust"

 

[jc456]

The right claims that they love the constitution but they don't even realize that it doesn't just cover citizens. ?

Not in the same way, Dimmy.


Alienage Classifications and the Equal Protection Clause
The Constitution affords protection to citizens in ways that it doesn't for non-citizens. The privileges and immunities clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of CITIZENS of the United States." Citizenship is also a prerequisite for voting under the 15th and 19th Amendments as for election to Congress or the Presidency.

There are parts to the con that specifically mention citizens , that is true .

But if you read the first page of this thread it's a circle jerk of idiot righties acting as if you can do anything you want to non citizens because they lack constitutional protections.

no cherry picking

 

[NightFox]

the constitution applies to everyone on our soil....do some reading up on it.

HINT-this is why we had to set up GITMO, off our soil....

Yes and no, the Supreme Court has held for more than a century that non-citizens on US soil are entitled to Constitutional Protections that are not expressly reserved for Citizens, the primary application of which has been sourced in the 14th Amendment's "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" and the 5th Amendments "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury", in other words foreign nationals on American Soil are "persons" and thus entitled to Constitutional Protections explicitly set aside for "person" (but not those explicitly set aside for "citizen"). Things get a little foggier where the Constitution refers to protections set aside for "the people" though such as First and Fourth Amendment protections although the court has tended to interpret those protections to also apply to non-citizens on US Soil as well.

Of course this wouldn't apply to foreign nationals that have been explicitly barred entry since they aren't legally on American Soil anyways.

these goofs think the constitution is for the world. ask them.

I'm sure many do and they're just as wrong as certain other "goofs" think that Constitutional Protections don't apply to foreign nationals on U.S. Soil.