3 ms·

What I don't understand is... In the Constitution of the United States are these words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

What I don't understand is... In the Constitution of the United States are these words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Morally, it seems that the US, as a people, claim the rights granted by the Constitution are rights due to all men. Why then, do we selectively apply these rights to only US citizens? Are the citizens of other countries of a lesser status that they do not deserve due process? Is that why it's okay to summarily judge and execute someone in another country when we suspect them of terrorism? Why can we legally do something(execute without due process, invade privacy, etc...) to a person in another country, that is illegal for their own country to do to them? Legally, of course, the Constitution can only be applied to those under its legal protection. But why is the rest of the world treated like second-class human beings by the US Government? The US Government should be bound by the constraints of the Constitution when dealing with any human being, not just a US Citizen.

haliax 10y ago
In fact, those words are not in our constitution but in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document. The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men". In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Not legally binding! I think Great Britain thought it was binding - a war was fought over it. Its a founding document of our country, and lays out all the moral principles our Constitution is based upon. It illuminates and explains what those fine words in the Constitution are meant to mean. As such it has been referred to in legal proceedings for centuries.
  - joelhooks 10y ago
    The war was well under way prior to the Declaration being drafted and signed. 1775.
- sathackr 10y ago
  I understand "war" has a different set of rules, but, historically, those rules have applied to specific circumstances of engagement. Targets were well known and understood. In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening! Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical. But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed. The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jdavis703 10y ago
That has never been the case. The Constitution only counts slaves as having 3/5 of the value as a non-slave for purposes of electoral representation. Not to mention the whole idea of slavery goes against the ideals of freedom. Even after slavery ended the right to vote was routinely denied to former slaves and their descendants, along with other rights such as due process.
- sathackr 10y ago
  Yep...rights to women as well. So historically "all men" and the "rights endowed by their creator" has always been loosely interpreted to fit the ideals and requirements of the leaders at that time. Which is morally wrong.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  3/5 compromise was intended to weaken the institution of slavery. The south would have been happy to count slaves as 2x human.
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  The motivation behind the "three-fifths" compromise is frequently misunderstood. Counting slaves as something "less than a full person" was actually a win for the abolitionists. Anti-slavery delegates were pushing for slaves to not be counted at all, while politicians from slaveholding states wanted them to count as a full citizen — thus amplifying the voting power of white southerners.
TheFinalWord123 10y ago
As it has been said, this is not in the Constitution, aside from that however, you are leaving off the next sentence of what these unalienable rights are. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". What do those rights have to do with a foreign country, passing any law they wish, and if they suspect one of their citizens breaks one of their laws, they can serve a legal search warrant to a United states company on US soil? Some examples I thought of: What about countries where homosexuality is illegal? What if one of their citizens posts on some site hosted in the US concerning their orientation? Now they will be arrested and executed. Would allowing this warrant be violating this individual's inalienable rights in this case? A slavery or human trafficking resistance in a foreign country has a private google group they communicate over. Now they can be hunted down and punished for freeing all those slaves. What about the slaves inalienable rights? Are we helping to violate those by allowing this? An individual in China posting on Hacker News an atrocity that the Chinese government has committed. They have a law against this, now they can serve a search warrant to ycom that reveals the person's identity and they can locate and execute that person. What about a christian posting something religious in a Islamic country? (he can be put to death for his religious beliefs). Are we a sovereign country or not? Globalists really don't want it to be. Quote from phpdevster (reddit) "At that point, we might as well just storm DC with guns, because what's the point of calling yourself a country if you're going to have porous physical and legal borders, where the citizens (and businesses) of a country are not in full control over the laws that govern them?"

haliax 10y ago

In fact, those words are not in our constitution but in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document. The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men". In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Not legally binding! I think Great Britain thought it was binding - a war was fought over it. Its a founding document of our country, and lays out all the moral principles our Constitution is based upon. It illuminates and explains what those fine words in the Constitution are meant to mean. As such it has been referred to in legal proceedings for centuries.
- joelhooks 10y ago
  The war was well under way prior to the Declaration being drafted and signed. 1775.
sathackr 10y ago
I understand "war" has a different set of rules, but, historically, those rules have applied to specific circumstances of engagement. Targets were well known and understood. In a "war" where every person on the planet is a potential enemy, these rules should not be applied, otherwise all someone has to say is "terrorist!" and poof, there go your rights...wait, that's exactly what's happening! Capturing and trying a person who is actively shooting at you is not practical. But the style of executions that the US and allies are engaging in has much more in common with law enforcement than "war" -- they receive a "tip" or as a product of their investigations, come across "information" that person X is engaging in terrorism activities. Person X is not permitted to present evidence to the contrary. They are not permitted to present a rebuttal to the claims. There is not even a check or balance on the assertions to Person X's activities. An assessment is made, strike ordered, and Person X, and anyone within a 100ft radius of them, are summarily judged and executed. The laws proposed are not limited to only "terrorists" -- and there is a long history of the US failing to apply any sort of constitutional protections to any second-class human being. How someone can claim that the protections of the Constitution(or the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence) are morally self-evident, but yet, somehow only apply to a US Citizen, presents two assertions that are in conflict.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jdavis703 10y ago

That has never been the case. The Constitution only counts slaves as having 3/5 of the value as a non-slave for purposes of electoral representation. Not to mention the whole idea of slavery goes against the ideals of freedom. Even after slavery ended the right to vote was routinely denied to former slaves and their descendants, along with other rights such as due process.

sathackr 10y ago
Yep...rights to women as well. So historically "all men" and the "rights endowed by their creator" has always been loosely interpreted to fit the ideals and requirements of the leaders at that time. Which is morally wrong.
nsxwolf 10y ago
3/5 compromise was intended to weaken the institution of slavery. The south would have been happy to count slaves as 2x human.
didgeoridoo 10y ago
The motivation behind the "three-fifths" compromise is frequently misunderstood. Counting slaves as something "less than a full person" was actually a win for the abolitionists. Anti-slavery delegates were pushing for slaves to not be counted at all, while politicians from slaveholding states wanted them to count as a full citizen — thus amplifying the voting power of white southerners.

TheFinalWord123 10y ago

As it has been said, this is not in the Constitution, aside from that however, you are leaving off the next sentence of what these unalienable rights are. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". What do those rights have to do with a foreign country, passing any law they wish, and if they suspect one of their citizens breaks one of their laws, they can serve a legal search warrant to a United states company on US soil? Some examples I thought of: What about countries where homosexuality is illegal? What if one of their citizens posts on some site hosted in the US concerning their orientation? Now they will be arrested and executed. Would allowing this warrant be violating this individual's inalienable rights in this case? A slavery or human trafficking resistance in a foreign country has a private google group they communicate over. Now they can be hunted down and punished for freeing all those slaves. What about the slaves inalienable rights? Are we helping to violate those by allowing this? An individual in China posting on Hacker News an atrocity that the Chinese government has committed. They have a law against this, now they can serve a search warrant to ycom that reveals the person's identity and they can locate and execute that person. What about a christian posting something religious in a Islamic country? (he can be put to death for his religious beliefs). Are we a sovereign country or not? Globalists really don't want it to be. Quote from phpdevster (reddit) "At that point, we might as well just storm DC with guns, because what's the point of calling yourself a country if you're going to have porous physical and legal borders, where the citizens (and businesses) of a country are not in full control over the laws that govern them?"