5 ms·

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".

by jorgeortiz85 14y ago

declan 14y ago
Could this be where pleasant political theory meets cold hard reality?
md224 14y ago
The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of Americans from the tyranny of "the people." Alas.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I don't buy that. It seems that the notion of rights endowed by the creator should apply broadly to all humans whenever possible.
  - XorNot 14y ago
    This is all well and good, yet doesn't matter if the majority have no interest in seeing them enforced.
  - Robin_Message 14y ago
    Given slavery was not abolished at the time of independence, it seems likely that the writers of the constitution did in fact not intend to apply rights to all humans as broadly as possible. What it means now? Who knows.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is high prose. The latter is a legal document. As a legal document, it cannot purport to give rights to people outside of its jurisdiction.
    - Zak 14y ago
      The Constitution does not purport to give rights to anybody. It declares that certain things are rights and prohibits the US government from violating them.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        You're confusing the declaration of independence, a fluff document, with the Constitution, a legal document. Fluffy language aside, in the Anglo-American tradition, rights derive from legal documents (or precedents), and the right to habeas corpus or a jury trial derives from the Constitution and is circumscribed the the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution.
- guelo 14y ago
  The Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "Americans" or "citizens".
- spot 14y ago
  this is false, FYI. Please reread the constitution. Sometimes it refers to citizens, sometimes it refers to people. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone. The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all “persons,” not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association. http://www.aclupa.org/issues/immigrantsrights/animmigrationguideforaclum.htm http://www.aclupa.org/issues/immigrantsrights/animmigrationg...
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The Bill of Rights only applies to "people" within the jurisdiction of the American government. The Constitution is not a document that has extraterritorial force of international extent.
    - Zak 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure that jurisdiction includes people in prisons operatedby the US government.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Control in the physical military sense is not the same as legislative jurisdiction. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager. E.g. the U.S. may have had control of occupied Baghdad, but that doesn't mean Congress had legislative jurisdiction over Baghdad. Now, the Supreme Court has decided that Congress has de facto legislative jurisdiction over Guantanamo (in an opinion comparing the historical treatment of Scotland, in which English habeas rights did not apply, to Ireland, in which they did): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush. Scalia's dissent was the most legally sensible: 'Justice Scalia added that the Court's majority "admits that it cannot determine whether the writ historically extended to aliens held abroad, and it concedes (necessarily) that Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States."[27] Justice Scalia pointed out that Johnson v. Eisentrager (where the Supreme Court decided that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison in China) "thus held—held beyond any doubt—that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign.' But the Court stopped short of saying that foreigners in Guantanamo have the same habeas rights as U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, probably because of the strained nature of their conclusion that they had any habeas rights at all.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  The Constitution details the authorities and powers that the government has. The government does not assume total power when it is dealing with non-citizens or operating overseas. The Supreme Court has ruled clearly on this in the past.

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of "the people".

declan 14y ago

Could this be where pleasant political theory meets cold hard reality?

md224 14y ago

The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of Americans from the tyranny of "the people." Alas.

MartinCron 14y ago
I don't buy that. It seems that the notion of rights endowed by the creator should apply broadly to all humans whenever possible.
- XorNot 14y ago
  This is all well and good, yet doesn't matter if the majority have no interest in seeing them enforced.
- Robin_Message 14y ago
  Given slavery was not abolished at the time of independence, it seems likely that the writers of the constitution did in fact not intend to apply rights to all humans as broadly as possible. What it means now? Who knows.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That's in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The former is high prose. The latter is a legal document. As a legal document, it cannot purport to give rights to people outside of its jurisdiction.
  - Zak 14y ago
    The Constitution does not purport to give rights to anybody. It declares that certain things are rights and prohibits the US government from violating them.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      You're confusing the declaration of independence, a fluff document, with the Constitution, a legal document. Fluffy language aside, in the Anglo-American tradition, rights derive from legal documents (or precedents), and the right to habeas corpus or a jury trial derives from the Constitution and is circumscribed the the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution.
guelo 14y ago
The Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "Americans" or "citizens".
spot 14y ago
this is false, FYI. Please reread the constitution. Sometimes it refers to citizens, sometimes it refers to people. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone. The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all “persons,” not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association. http://www.aclupa.org/issues/immigrantsrights/animmigrationguideforaclum.htm http://www.aclupa.org/issues/immigrantsrights/animmigrationg...
- rayiner 14y ago
  The Bill of Rights only applies to "people" within the jurisdiction of the American government. The Constitution is not a document that has extraterritorial force of international extent.
  - Zak 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure that jurisdiction includes people in prisons operatedby the US government.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Control in the physical military sense is not the same as legislative jurisdiction. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager. E.g. the U.S. may have had control of occupied Baghdad, but that doesn't mean Congress had legislative jurisdiction over Baghdad. Now, the Supreme Court has decided that Congress has de facto legislative jurisdiction over Guantanamo (in an opinion comparing the historical treatment of Scotland, in which English habeas rights did not apply, to Ireland, in which they did): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush. Scalia's dissent was the most legally sensible: 'Justice Scalia added that the Court's majority "admits that it cannot determine whether the writ historically extended to aliens held abroad, and it concedes (necessarily) that Guantanamo Bay lies outside the sovereign territory of the United States."[27] Justice Scalia pointed out that Johnson v. Eisentrager (where the Supreme Court decided that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison in China) "thus held—held beyond any doubt—that the Constitution does not ensure habeas for aliens held by the United States in areas over which our Government is not sovereign.' But the Court stopped short of saying that foreigners in Guantanamo have the same habeas rights as U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, probably because of the strained nature of their conclusion that they had any habeas rights at all.
brown9-2 14y ago
The Constitution details the authorities and powers that the government has. The government does not assume total power when it is dealing with non-citizens or operating overseas. The Supreme Court has ruled clearly on this in the past.