historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:26 PM
Original message |
consitution question URGENT PLEASE |
|
Help!!! Does anyone know whether the constitution only covers citizens and could you ples indicate some cases which refer to this prefereably a supreme decision thanks (urgent please)
|
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:26 PM
Response to Original message |
1. What part of the Constitution are you referring to? |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 04:27 PM by MrCoffee
It depends...different parts apply differently.
|
historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. the people and citizens |
|
Im trying to find out whether the detainees in guantanamo, who are in offically recognized jurisdictional territory, are protected under the constitution whether they are citizens or not
|
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. They are not citizens. Is this a trick question or something? |
|
Why on earth would you think they are citizens?
There might be a US citizen or 2, who knows, but the overwhelming majority are not US citizens.
|
historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
i know they are not citizens and thats the whole point. Do non citizens have the same rights as citizens when it comes to the constitution? also they are some us citizens who had been detained and are treated differently. thats what im trying to find out
|
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Like I said, it depends on the constitutional question as to whether |
|
it applies universally or just to citizens. Your OP and subsequent responses are way to vague to give an intelligible or meaningful answer.
|
historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
well here is the problem - the detainees in guantanamo have been denied any rights to counsel or habeas corpus. The constitution says that we the people , which i assume means all who live within any area under us jurisdiction, are protected under the constitution. If this is not the case, then the detainees are not entitled to any rights? but the supreme court has determined under these circumstances that they do have rights, so does that holding supersede the term we the people and automatically grant rights to anyone detained at guantanamo? I hope i mangage to express myself better, thanks for your patience
|
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. I wasn't trying to insult you, honestly...i just didn't understand the OP. |
|
Part of your post cites the "We the People" language of the Preamble, which as far as I know has never been cited by any court to justify anything...it's not operative language.
If I understand you correctly, you're asking whether the Suspension Clause ("Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.") applies to detainees at Guantanamo. Correct?
|
historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
I know you werent insulting me and i appreciate you taking the time. In essence i need to know if anyone who commits a crime in usa territory has the right to habeas corpus. also does denying habeas corpus automatically means denial to counsel and due process thanks again your help is much appreciated
|
Taverner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I think (not entirely sure tho) that the clause about |
|
documents signed in one state are valid in another was used to grant full constitutional rights to visitors from other countries while in the US.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
3. if I'm not mistaken, the legal/judicial stuff applies to non-citizens |
|
except the voting, running for office, etc. stuff.
But in terms of legal stuff, even non-citizens have miranda rights, right to trial by jury, yada yada yada, until they get shipped out of the country and back to their own.
Though I'm not a lawyer, that has been my understanding from my readings and other accounts: that EVERYONE within the borders and on American soil (who are there legally) have all the protections, and even most of the rights, of citizens.
it's one of the things that make this country so cool, along with being automatically given the chance to be a citizen just by being born here, even if your parents are from another country and here on vacation.
Or made it cool, before PATRIOT and Reagan and other republicans fucked the country over and turned half into a police state.
|
nealmhughes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Citizenship is mentioned but a few times in the Constitution, and mostly |
|
about who is one and how one is made from an immigrant and to set office and voting qualifications.
For example the President must be a "Natural Born citizen" (whatever that is, on US soil, or from US citizens who were abroad, or at sea has never been tested). One must be a citizen of his or her respective state and the US to hold a congressional seat and there is also a time limit and an age limit as well.
Ex-slaves were made citizens by amendment.
That is about it.
|
Parche
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Citizens of the Kingdom of Bush?? or American Citizens???
|
historian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
well in the old days one could say that being a citizen was the same thing as living inthe kingdom of bush 2nd but no longer. Well american citizen actually
|
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-05-06 06:14 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I don't think the issue has been resolved |
|
The SCOTUS held that the statutory provision enacted by Congress relating to habeas corpus didn't distinguish between citizens and foreign nationals and thus the detainees in Guantanamo were entitled to seek a writ of habeas corpus. HOwever, that decision doesn't resolve the issue of whether Congress could constitutionally limit the writ to citizens.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:51 AM
Response to Original message |