Bill of Rights

**Don Corleone** · 07-14-2005, 15:24

In theory, you're certainly right, Franconius. But if you ask most people, in practice, it's what the government feels like granting you today. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean, including the Bill of Rights, and they've interpreted it to mean "Congress can pretty much do as they damn well please". There isn't one of the 10 ammendments in the Bill of Rights that Congress has enacted a law limiting the scope of the original text in some way. It is very, very rare for SCOTUS to find for the individual. They almost always find for expanding the powers of Congress, whether that jibes with the Bill of Rights or not.

**Franconicus** · 07-14-2005, 15:30

Well you know I still have Gawain's offer to join the US with the rest of the world. I would if the BoR is the fundament. Maybe I demand that the government is changed and the Supreme Court suspended. Yes, if he wants me to be in, that is what he has to do

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-14-2005, 15:54

But I understand less than ever how the US government can say that the prisoners at Gitmo do not have these rights

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.

Unfortuantly, the rights in the Bill of Rights can be taken away at any time by the government which the patriot act has proven...

You really think the government could take away the bill of rights? Not without causing another revolution they couldnt.

**Marcellus** · 07-14-2005, 16:24

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.

If the Bill of Rights describes inalienable human rights, and you are saying that people who go to jail lose these rights (are you sure about that, anyway?), then you must be saying that anybody in jail is no longer human. Would you say that becuase someone shoplifted that they are no longer human?

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You really think the government could take away the bill of rights? Not without causing another revolution they couldnt.

I think that the point that was made was that Governments have not so much removed the Bill of Rights, but rather have ignored it.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-14-2005, 16:29

If the Bill of Rights describes inalienable human rights, and you are saying that people who go to jail lose these rights (are you sure about that, anyway?),

I sure a Ive been there. If you think youve got the same rights in jail as you do on the outside your sadly mistaken. Wheres your LIBERTY for starts?

then you must be saying that anybody in jail is no longer human.

NO Im not.

Would you say that becuase someone shoplifted that they are no longer human?

Nope and they probably wont be in jail if its their first time. This is a silly way to argue this point. If your locked in a cell you sure arent getting all the rights of regular citizens.

**Al Khalifah** · 07-14-2005, 16:38

They would argue that they are restricting your rights temporarily in order to protect them for the future. Pretty much all democracies will have measures in place to suspend the constitution / your rights in the event of a national emergency. The Roman Republic had the senatus consultum ultimum for example.

It's just a sad fact that free citizens are not as safe as those living under tighter controls.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-14-2005, 16:44

It's just a sad fact that free citizens are not as safe as those living under tighter controls.

Its true and ironic. Indeed you are safer from harm in jail than on the street. Its my main theme. Freedom costs lives. How much freedom are you willing to pay for is the real question.

**Proletariat** · 07-14-2005, 17:03

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The same way those in jail loose their rights. There are exceptions to every rule.

This is not an exception, I must disagree. No where does the BoR apply to non-US citizens.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-14-2005, 17:11

This is not an exception, I must disagree. No where does the BoR apply to non-US citizens.

Its an exception as far as US citizens losing their rights in jail. I agree that the BoR dosent extend to those not citizens here but thats not the premise thats being disscussed. Its do we believe that everyone in the world has or should have these rights. I believe they should Therfore it apllies in ths disscussion as to whether they should be treated as if they were citizens. Again I believe those in Gitmo are being treated better than the arverage US citizen is who are being held in US jails.

**Marcellus** · 07-14-2005, 21:47

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Its an exception as far as US citizens losing their rights in jail.

I don't think that US citizens lose their rights when they go to jail, more that certain rights are suspended in order to protect the rights of others (e.g. liberty suspended to protect others' right to safety). Going to jail does not automatically remove the person's rights.

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Again I believe those in Gitmo are being treated better than the arverage US citizen is who are being held in US jails.

If this is the case then I would be very concerned about the state of US jails.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-14-2005, 21:51

I don't think that US citizens lose their rights when they go to jail, more that certain rights are suspended in order to protect the rights of others (e.g. liberty suspended to protect others' right to safety). Going to jail does not automatically remove the person's rights.

It removes most of the important ones like liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Also the right to drive to vote and to even eat when or what you would like. The only rights you reall have left are those that apply to the courts and your life.

If this is the case then I would be very concerned about the state of US jails.

I seriously doubt that prisoners in your countries jails are treated as well as those at Gitmo either.