One thing wrong with your amendment, Dafyyd..."not found to have taken up arms against the US". Not found by whom? Wouldn't that involve a trial for some and isn't that a loophole for others? Lawyers are tricky and so is this president and his attorney general.

Hmmm,patrioitic democrats. Does not compute.

I'll take a swing at this one, Dafydd... from a Conservative's point of view.

Rights, Liberties, privileges and immunities are not granted by the US Constitution... nor are they protected by it. Directly. They are recognized in the Constitution, sure. Those who would diminish them are restricted, absolutely. Granted, as a result, they are protected, but not so much by any phrase saying "X is hereby protected."

I think it's called "Natural Law". (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm pretty sure, but not totally.) The basic idea is that our Constitution recognizes specific basic, pre-existing and immutable Rights and Ideals. It specifically limits Congress in what it can do about others.

As a result... it can very easily be understood that these Rights (granted by God) are the Rights of all Men, everywhere. Our Government can't take them away from Citizens of Japan, nor should it try.

Unless.

Unless they are at War with the United States. In that case, "Providing for the Common Defense" is a survival issue, and a new set of rules... "War Powers"... come into play. AT THAT POINT, we Historically have temporarily set aside the Rights recognized in the Constitution for our own CITIZENS, much less the enemy.

This, I think, is why the Democrats are so reluctant to recognize that we are at War with the Islamic Terrorists who have declared War against us. Because if they DO recognize that a State of War exists, they have to recognize that the President's War Powers come into play. They just don't like that at all.

Rights, Liberties, privileges and immunities are not granted by the US Constitution... nor are they protected by it. Directly. They are recognized in the Constitution, sure.

The Constitution does not agree with you. Nor do the great majority of conservative legal scholars - Bork, Scalia, etc.

I think it's called "Natural Law".

The trouble with Natural Law is that opinions differ as to what Natural Law says. So who should get to make that decsion? In our system, the people are supposed to decide.

The rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities protected by this Constitution shall apply only to United States citizens and legally resident or visiting aliens, not found to have taken up arms against the United States of America.

This was the standard understanding of the Constitution until a few years ago. The German spies who were plotting to blow things up over here were not accorded the full range of Constitutional protections. (For that matter, nor were the AXIS POW's who where kept in camps in the US.)

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)