Login/Sign Up




Constitutional Rights for Everyone
Politics

froggyj4
Apr 07, 2007
16 votes
14 debaters
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

9
Constitutional Rights Apply to All


misterio
Apr 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rights because they are human. You are also assuming guilt. We believe in innocence until proven guilty for a reason; we don't want to condemn the innocent.

Illegal immigrants can be deported, that's fine. But don't treat them as if they weren't human. The problem with Gitmo is that there have been, and are bound to me more, innocents caught in the net. Yes, mistakes are inevitably made, but let's sort it out and keep the guilty. Would you want to be stuck there for years when all you want to do is go back to your family? That's what
due process is there for.

One of the reasons the US has been successful is that the world knows that US respects human beings. Individuals within the enemy often decide to defect. That's how we won WWI and WWII (witness Einstein). That's why Gulf War I was won so easily. And treating people fairly is how we will succeed. Disrespecting the innocent will only strengthen the opposition by turning them against us. Many analysts believe that a missing Iranian diplomat that went missing in Europe defected and knows much about Iranian operations.

You can't spread democracy and peace with violence, stereotypes, and ignorance of civil liberties. By the same token, that doesn't mean we can't strike at the enemy decisively and successfully as the US has done many times.

 
gogopoet
Apr 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kenski70 Show

RE: "I would like to know how someone who is hell bent on destroying my homeland is entitled to the same rights I have.."

They aren't. They would fall under the category of treason, for which sanctions are provided under the law. But, it is incumbant upon you, the accuser, to prove the accused is actually guilty. Everyone on US soil has that right because the representatives of the several states that formed this union and enacted the US Constitution as the governing instrument of law agreed everyone would get that right.

RE: "Rights we have fough wars to obtain."

Technically we have never fought a war to "obtain" human rights. We've fought one war to overthrow the rule of England. All of our civil rights stem from the Bill of Rights, which were not part of the original US Constitution.

RE: " Rights over 1 million Americans have died for in the last 200 years."

Can you provide a breakdown of your figures here. Few of our wars have been for the defense of human rights. Most have been for conquest and/or the fulfillment of treasty obligations.

RE: "So why are people caught in the same manner now alloted the rights I have???? "

The primary reason is that we are not in a declared war against an identifiable enemy. It is simply too easy to accuse anyone our representative don't like of being suspected enemies. This is about protecting YOUR right to be given a fair trial if someone accuses you of terrorism. It's not about protecting terrorists. But to protect your rights to a fair trial, we have to extend that right to terrorists. It is better for a few terrorists to avoid conviction than for everyone to lose their freedom, and that's really what it comes down to.

 
dirtpatch
Apr 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The mere fact that the recent administration has changed the law to allow arrests without charges proves that all people are afforded our constitutional rights once they enter our legal system. They had to assert authority to detain without charges, because if they were to charge them then they would have to be afforded the rights we are speaking of. its also the same reason that they have asserted that any of their detainees that are charged will be put on trial before a military tribunal, which does not offer the same protections as the real judicial system.
any person citizen or not prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. we need to be sure to differentiate between constitutional rights and citizen privledges. Any person who defends the constitution must also defend those rights for any person , legal citizen or not, that enters our criminal justice system.

 
supremebeing
Apr 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kenski70 Show

Whining about Gitmo…Lets see… we invade a country that had no link to terrorism…yet we imprison thousands of people for being “terrorists”…something doesn’t quite add up there…How many of them are completely innocent? If we start torturing, executing, imprisoning innocent humans, we are NO BETTER than those we are supposedly trying to catch. Either way, the rights you are speaking of, regarding enemy combatants are not given in the United Staes constitution.

“Hell bent on destroying are homeland” Where did you here this from? The Osama/Al Qaeda transcripts I have read do not speak of destroying our homeland…they speak of ending the attacks on innocent Palestinian civilians…They speak of toppling a government that supplies weapons to countries that are used on innocent civilians. How did we know for sure that Saddam had poison gas.. the USA sold it to him. How do we know that Iran has f-14 jets capable of attacking US targets…because the USA sold it to Iran. It appears you are not informed as to WHY Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. What country were the 9/11 hijackers from? How many prisoners do we have from that country? How much pressure has the US govt put on this country?

Millions of Americans have died over the constitution? That’s a new one to me…I guess things are different now…People must not care as much about the US constitution nowadays…Very few have been outspoken about how President Bush has taken away rights to privacy, right to juries/trial, right to protest the govt (free speech), probable cause…No one person or group of people have ever done so much damage to your beloved constitution. So, before you start looking overseas or at another country as a threat to your homeland…look closer at home, you might be surprised at what you find. But, if you are close minded, or hold our government officials in the same light as gods, you might have a hard time dealing with reality.


 
blkaznballa
Apr 10, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: froggyj4 Show

not all immigrants are illegal, contrary to fox news reporting. My parents are legal U.S. citizens. They have every right that you do.

 
dirtpatch
Apr 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3 Show

and were not saying our rights apply to them, were saying our rights apply to them while they are here in the states.


 
supremebeing
Apr 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
The Polish and the Irish were the scapegoats of the past. Now its Mexicans...50 years from now it could be South Americans or Africans…or who knows maybe people will be fleeing the U.S…

 
masterthief117
Apr 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If you are in the US, and if you are working and providing back to this country, whether you are a legal citizen or not, you deserve your constitutional rights.
If you are alive, regardless of where you live and what you have done, no matter how heinous the act, you are still human and still have rights.

 
vancam
Apr 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kenski70 Show

Geneva convention.

 
gogopoet
Apr 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: froggyj4 Show

It has nothing to do with who deserves constitutional rights. The law is blind to that. It has everything to do with the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases, dating all the way back to the early days of the country, who is and is not afforded rights under that amendment. The consensus of the court is that virtually everyone on US soil automatically gets those rights by virtue of being here.

That explains the immigrant part of the question. The terrorist question has been argued as a matter of wartime laws established under the Geneva Accords. Under the Constitution those treaties became part of US law when the president signed them and Congress ratified them - the only case in which the president signs a law before Congress creates it. The problem is that the Geneva Accords address convential warfare in which the military forces of one nation or group of nations is pitted against another nation or group of nations. What we have now is one nation, the US, pitted against an amorphous group of individuals who represent no nation or even one ideology. Their only commonality is that they oppose the US and seek to undermine its principles and goals or destroy it outright.

The terrorists caught in ligitimate warzones who represent the nation we are at war with can be regarded as rogue agents and dealt with as such. Outside those ligitimate warzones, and US property, we have NO AUTHORITY to capture anyone for any reason. Here's were things get dicy. We are not at war with any nation. We are fighting in Iraq, but we are not fighting Iraq. We are supposedly fighting FOR Iraq, but we are fighting Iraqi citizens. Why should we have the authority to take Iraqi citizens to a third country and hold them indefinately without charge or access to legal resources that might prove them innocent of wrongdoing? How can we, the US citizens know that these aren't simply political prisoners? Without a trial we can't. The same applies to Afghanistan and people we capture there. Terrorists in the US fall under the regular legal system everyone else does.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 
dirtpatch
Apr 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

you have made our sides argument for us, our constitution, which we call the first 10 ammendments to "the bill of rights" sets those rights as basic human rights, that are inalienable. Inalienable means that the government that runs under our constitution cannot deny those right to any person. it states americas position that we believe all people are born with these rights,, and the constitution is there to protect those basic rights of any one on its shores.
it is the same argument that bush and co had to fall back to when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction in iraq, they said that we are a country who beleives that all peoples are born with those rights and that saddam was taking those rights from his people and we needed to go and free them.

case point, no further argument needed, this is a direct quote from the declaration of independance:
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
notice it says all men, not all men born in America,but ALL MEN!

 
gogopoet
Apr 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

RE: "Obviously that means that the Constitution only applies to citizens, not people from another country."

Not so obvious. The Preamble to the Constitution is not part OF the Constitution. The applicable text is found in the 14th Amendment. That extends all the legal protections afforded to citizens to anyone within the legal jurisdiction of the US.

 
dirtpatch
Apr 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

the constitution is set forth as the law of the land, the quote you provided merely states that those are the laws of the land here, in the new union forming. there is no other way to interpret the declaration of independence than as setting what the founders considered basic human rights, and who those rights applied to in our system,, all men.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America."
as point, these laws pertain to this country, this statement is merely saying that this constitution is the law of the land in the united states. that we would no longer be ruled by any foreign land.

 
gogopoet
Apr 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kenski70 Show

Sharp shoot? No! I am simply getting at the facts of the matter so the subject can be addressed using reason rather than emotion.

1. Guilty of what? The fact that we happen to be on a battlefield does not automatically mean that we have a ligitimate reason for being there.

2 a. Assuming the war was fought over slavery, a point still in contention among scholars, but only about 224,000 of the 620,000 soldiers who died were fighting FOR human rights.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

2 b. If we had lost the American Revolution, I think it is safe to say we would now enjoy about the same rights all subjects of the British crown enjoy. Unless I am mistaken their rights, while not enumerated, are comparable to ours.

3 a. The number of Union deaths did not even approach half and regardless of whether the war was over slavery or not, the Confederate forces were not fighting for the right of the individual to own slaves. The issue was about States Rights.

3 b. During WWII, the US was engaged in two seprate, though related wars. Military forces in the Pacific Theater were, in fact, defending the rights of US citizens. Military forces in the European Theater were fighting to meet the obligations of treaties made prior to the war. They were defending the rights of Europeans. I don't believe that applies for the purposes of this debate.

4 a. For legal purposes, which is what we are argueing, it is very important whether a war is declared or not. Every legal arguement in US history hinges on such technicalities. Without those distinctions though we would not have a rule of law.

4 b. The enemy has not chosen to be unidentifiable. The enemy simply is not a single entity. The enemy is a bunch of individuals in many places who act on their own or align themselves with one or more groups we can identify. Their allegiance though is to a cause, not a group. It can be compared, in that respect, to the gay-bashers of America who might not belong to any group or might belong to several which actively protest homosexuality.

 
dirtpatch
Apr 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

what the hell? no it isnt obvious that are rights only apply to its citizens.
what dont you understand, seriously?
the pre-amble to the constitution you quoted is merely stating that these are the laws that will be followed in this country, that we are now a sovereign nation independant of other nations laws. the declaration of independance states our position as to who has what rights.
as the declaration explains, the bill of rights are what the founding fathers considered basic human rights deserved by ALL MEN, and our government couldnt take those rights away from ANY MAN.(un-aleinable)
again your just proving our point, the preamble states that the constitution is the law of this land and must be followed by any government that operates in it. the constitution states that ALL MEN are born with basic human rights.

 
gogopoet
Apr 10, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

You obviously failed to read my arguement addressing that point of view. Allow me to re-post it here:

The Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases,
dating all the way back to the early days of the country, who is and is not afforded rights under that amendment. The consensus of the court is that virtually everyone on US soil automatically
gets those rights by virtue of being here.

 
gogopoet
Apr 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3 Show

RE: "Doesn't sound fair to me. Why should they get all the benefit and none of the negative? "

Life's not fair. Why should they get the benefit? Because the people of this nation voted to extend rights to virtually everyone on U.S. soil. Don't forget, this isn't the first time illegal immigration has been an issue here. In the late 1800s we had the same discussions about those terrible Pollocks slipping across the Candian border, and destroying our country.

 
gogopoet
Apr 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3 Show

If you don't want them here force your government to enforce the laws against hiring illegals instead of looking the other way or promoting it. I know they promote it, because there was a day labor camp in Houston, Tx, established by the federal government for the benefit of illegal aliens. This was in the early 90s right after the laws were toughened on hiring illegals, under the Herbert Walker Bush administration.

The simple fact is that corporate America wants cheap labor and corporate America has our government in its pocket. So long as we keep voting for Republicans and Democrats nothing is going to change.

 
gogopoet
Apr 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

Care to enumerate those so they can be discussed?

 
alex2103
Apr 24, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think something should be done about illegal immigration, but since nothing good is being done in my opinion, those illegal immigrants that are here and pay taxes and are making a living for themselves and their families should be given constitutional rights. The illegals that are working here and are not causeing problems should be given citizenship and should get their rights.

 
+ Add Argument

7
Constitutional Rights Apply only to US Citizens


tresa
Apr 08, 2007
5 convinced
Rebuttal
It's called the United States Constitiution, not the World Constitution. Simple.

 
rolanderikson
Apr 08, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Why should illegal immigrants (which I presume this is about) get the same right as legal immigrants? It cheapens legal immigration as well as making it ok to break the law. I don't see why someone who hops over a fence and sneaks into this country deserves the same American rights as a person who legally entered this country and waited years for a citizenship. Illegals get basic human rights but do not deserve full American rights.

 
froggyj4
Apr 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Recently, liberals have been making a lot of hay out of immigrants having fewer rights, and terrorists not receiving due process. Do those people think that everyone deserves Constitutional Rights, and if so, why (legally)?

 
kenski70
Apr 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Great point! I would like to know how someone who is hell bent on destroying my homeland is entitled to the same rights I have.. Rights we have fough wars to obtain. Rights over 1 million Americans have died for in the last 200 years. I see no reason to extend these rights to our enemies....... Did you know in WW2 the Germans sent sabotures to the US to commit terrorism to slow our millitary.They were sent to blow up bridges and dams. They were executed...... When German troops ditched thier uniforms and tried to fight us in civilian clothes. They found the US standpoin being. since to donot fight us as soldiers we will not extend the geneva convention rights to you. They were shot by firing sqaud. No tribunals, no hearings, just a bullet... So why are people caught in the same manner now alloted the rights I have???? Its all crap! These guys are whinning about gitmo... They are lucky they havent been shot....Weve done it before.

 
Brett Stubbs
Apr 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Obviously "Constitutional RIghts" refer to the US constitution. The Geneva convention isn't an international constitution of rights, rather treaties that apply strictly to War and the treatment of soldiers and non-combatants during war.

 
rolanderikson
Apr 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

Maybe you should get your facts straight.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice at the end: "Establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously that means that the Constitution only applies to citizens, not people from another country.

 
rolanderikson
Apr 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

Yes, everyone gets basic rights, we all agree on that, but there are other rights that you can only get as a a citizen of the United States. There are rights only citizens should be allowed to have, or there would be no point in becoming a citizen as everyone would have them.

 
kenski70
Apr 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Oh gonna try to sharp shoot me huh? ok here goes
1) If someone is caught on the battle field baering arms against us they are guilty.
2)Did you forget about the civil war? tell me no one gained any rights out of that one. And if England had prevailed how many rights would we have lost?
3)Break down of 1 million losses here goes....Civil war 666,000 US deaths granted half were Confederate but they were Americans fighting to secure what they felt were thier rights. WW1 had 250,000 US deaths. WW2 had 250,000 US deaths. thats over 1 million. And I haven't even named all the wars yet.
4) Finally we are at war declared or not. and the fact the enemy has choosen to be unidentifiable means they should be dispatched the same way as the Nazi saboutoures......

 
rolanderikson
Apr 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dirtpatch Show

So obviously our rights only apply to citizens.

 
tggdan3
Apr 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
How can you say the rights of the constitution apply to people in Spain or France or Iraq?

Only the US is bound to the constitution and only citizens have those rights. If you don't like it, don't come, or apply for citizen ship.

If I don't pay taxes I go to PRISON.
If a mexican doesn't pay taxes he goes to Mexico.

Doesn't sound fair to me. Why should they get all the benefit and none of the negative?

 
tggdan3
Apr 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

You're right, life's not fair. But that's all I hear whining about.

"It's not fair that illegal immigrants are getting paid slave wages!" "It's not fair companies are outsourcing jobs!"

The government is run like a business, and it works as long as the taxes come in to pay the bills. Force immigrants to pay taxes or get out is a good way to increase revenue. If they want rights, don't break into the country.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong