main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Constitutional Rights for Non-Citizens

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Aunecah_Skywalker, Apr 23, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aunecah_Skywalker

    Aunecah_Skywalker Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Okay, we were discussing this in our class the other day, and now I can't get my mind off it. I've skimmed the past couple of pages, and I couldn't see any topic similar to this one ...

    Should everybody who live in US have the constitutional rights?

    Personally, I think that they should. If a citizen and a non-citizen steal a car together, why shouldn't they both be treated the same way? Shouldn't they both go through Trials, have the right to a lawyer, etc. ?

    Of course, where I'm going with this one is Bush and the Military Tribunals - he has the power, apparently, to order non-citizen terrorists to Military Tribunals. I think that Military Tribunals are a fine idea, but I don't see why we should be discriminating citizens from non-citizens - a crime is a crime is a crime.

    Aunecah
     
  2. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    A lot of it depends on exactly what rights are being discussed and what the circumstances are.

    For example, the Fifth Amendment states:
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    At least by my reading, that means people (not just citizens). However, the exception covers times of war and those in active service (note that it does not say on which side).

    However, when it refers to a right of "the people" (as opposed to persons), I believe that it is referring to a right held by citizens only (such as the right to bear arms).

    Kimball Kinnison
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.