• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where in the Constitution of the US...

Care to quote any of it... since it's the entire American case law you shouldn't have trouble.

Sure, let's start with the 14th amendment...

No, let's do this: try to find one case -- just one -- that says that the law in America applies only to citizens.
 
Why else would the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be held in civil court in New York?

Or why can't we just shoot illegal immigrants?
 
Your simple reading has ignored the context in which the Constitution was written. It wouldn't stand up in any court of law due to this.

This is, of course, absurd. No court in the land would ever rule that the Constitution only protects or applies to citizens, except for the obvious case of voting.
 
" Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that 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.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens."

James Madison on the Alien and Sedition Acts

The debates in the several state ... - Google Books
 
And here is a case where the Supreme Court acknowledged that non-citizens are subject to the same laws and therefore the protections that citizens are:

WONG WING v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)
163 U.S. 228

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Why else would the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be held in civil court in New York?

Or why can't we just shoot illegal immigrants?

By their logic, we could just round up and shoot all non-citizens and just shoot them and put them in a big pit. It would be perfectly legal.
 
Why else would the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be held in civil court in New York?

because we are stupid enough to bring him into the United States. that's why the Gitmo location was so beneficial up until we decided to shoot ourselves in the face.
 
because we are stupid enough to bring him into the United States. that's why the Gitmo location was so beneficial up until we decided to shoot ourselves in the face.
I digress and do not mean to sidetrack the thread, but I feel it is important to clarify how wrong you are.
On the face of things, bury the bastard in a fire ant pit and while that would feed and satisfy our need for revenge it would also feed their fire. A military tribunal would recognize him as a combatant, thus making him a martyr too.
A civil court makes him a common criminal no different than the slime in their gutters.
 
I digress and do not mean to sidetrack the thread, but I feel it is important to clarify how wrong you are.
On the face of things, bury the bastard in a fire ant pit and while that would feed and satisfy our need for revenge it would also feed their fire. A military tribunal would recognize him as a combatant, thus making him a martyr too.
A civil court makes him a common criminal no different than the slime in their gutters.

actually they couldn't care less as they don't fundamentally see a difference between US civilians and US combatants. you are attributing to them a distinction that we make and they do not. a military tribunal that keeps him under wraps and away from the spotlight, and results in his execution makes him a martyr. a civilian trial that allows him to publicly take the US to task, gain access to classified information, and drain us of hundreds of millions of dollars makes him a hero as well as a martyr. it also lets him still have a positive impact on AQ's strategic collections. it's not about vengeance, it's minimizing this guys' ability to still cause the death of innocent Muslim and American citizens.

there is a thread in the "war on terror" about the stupidity of pretending that war is a criminal matter. if you are as interested in this as I, i suggest we take it there?
 
This is, of course, absurd. No court in the land would ever rule that the Constitution only protects or applies to citizens, except for the obvious case of voting.

I apologize, I thought that we were talking about something else. :2wave:
 
Sure, let's start with the 14th amendment...

No, let's do this: try to find one case -- just one -- that says that the law in America applies only to citizens.

The 14th amendment is not "case law". Nice try at escaping. Since it's "the entirety of American case law" you shouldn't have a problem quoting actual case law that proves your position.
 
By their logic, we could just round up and shoot all non-citizens and just shoot them and put them in a big pit. It would be perfectly legal.

The problem you have here is that I never claimed Constitutional protections cannot be extended to non-citizens. Nor did I claim that non-citizens are not subject to our laws. Of course if you knew or understood that the Constitution is not our nations law book, you might realize your mistake.
 
because we are stupid enough to bring him into the United States. that's why the Gitmo location was so beneficial up until we decided to shoot ourselves in the face.
If you painted your house bright green and your neighbors asked you to change the color, you could say no. If they started throwing eggs at your car you could stick it out and hope they don't escalate their anger or you could change the color. If you decide to stick it out only to find more and more of your neighbors throwing eggs at your car and now your children, you could continue to stick it out or you could change the color.

We've decided to change the color because it's not really all that important or necessary.
 
The problem you have here is that I never claimed Constitutional protections cannot be extended to non-citizens. Nor did I claim that non-citizens are not subject to our laws. Of course if you knew or understood that the Constitution is not our nations law book, you might realize your mistake.

If I confused you by talking about the Constitution and laws, sorry.

The Constitution applies to everyone, including non-citizens. I governs the United States as a country and everyone in it.
 
I take it you can't find the case law?

I already posted a case on this thread, as well as a good quote from James Madison directly addressing the issue.

There's not much in the way of caselaw because it's hardly a controversial issue. It's obvious that the Constitution applies to all, not just citizens. Rarely has it been questioned.
 
I take it you can't find the case law?

Fine, then. My standard fee is $150 an hour. I accept all forms of payment, including credit cards. Generally though I don't do research for free, especially over something so ridiculous.

I spent three years in law school studying the Constitution, took Constitutional Law classes, and have been teaching Con Law classes to Community College students since the 1990s. Not one has ever made the absurd claims you have, because there is not one case law that supports your view.

I have dared you to produce ANY law that supports your strange idea, and cannot help but notice that you refuse to do so.

And, in case you didn't notice, the premier case on the subject, from back in the 1800s, was already posted in this thread.
 
Fine, then. My standard fee is $150 an hour. I accept all forms of payment, including credit cards. Generally though I don't do research for free, especially over something so ridiculous.

I spent three years in law school studying the Constitution, took Constitutional Law classes, and have been teaching Con Law classes to Community College students since the 1990s. Not one has ever made the absurd claims you have, because there is not one case law that supports your view.

I have dared you to produce ANY law that supports your strange idea, and cannot help but notice that you refuse to do so.

And, in case you didn't notice, the premier case on the subject, from back in the 1800s, was already posted in this thread.
Oh I should never question a teacher because they are always right. I went to college too, not community college, btw.

You dared me to find case law to support my premise as your answer to my "dare" for you to find case law. Answer a question with a question in order to avoid answering the question much? :rofl

Where in the Constitution does it say that murder is against the law? The "case law" you're referencing, which someone else posted, has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Nice try though.

Madison's writing is not good for your argument but thanks to misterman for posting it. As I stated earlier and as Madison seems to agree with me, "I never claimed Constitutional protections cannot be extended to non-citizens. Nor did I claim that non-citizens are not subject to our laws."
 
Madison's writing is not good for your argument but thanks to misterman for posting it. As I stated earlier and as Madison seems to agree with me, "I never claimed Constitutional protections cannot be extended to non-citizens. Nor did I claim that non-citizens are not subject to our laws."

You keep saying what you don't claim. What exactly DO you claim?
 
If you painted your house bright green and your neighbors asked you to change the color, you could say no. If they started throwing eggs at your car you could stick it out and hope they don't escalate their anger or you could change the color. If you decide to stick it out only to find more and more of your neighbors throwing eggs at your car and now your children, you could continue to stick it out or you could change the color.

We've decided to change the color because it's not really all that important or necessary.

you'll have to forgive me if i find it difficult to see handing our enemies an advantage that has and will continue to result in increased deaths of innocents (including American citizens) as "not really all that important".
 
Ok I seem to remember making this post.....ah yes there it is....

There are some pro-life folks that say that the Constitution of the US protects unborn children. For those that state this could you quote directly where it does this?

No one here has yet to prove that the Constitution protects unborn children. Here's a hint. The only way to do so is to prove that the fetus inside the woman is a person. No one disputes that those cells are alive. No one disputes that the cells are genetically human. The whole dispute is weather or not the fetus is a person in every sense of the word. Physically, psychologically and metaphysically.
 
The whole dispute is weather or not the fetus is a person in every sense of the word. Physically, psychologically and metaphysically.

Actually, the dispute is whether or not the fetus is a person in a single sense of the word. The legal sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom