Editorial: To Whom Does the Constitution Apply?

Among the questions we continue to debate is to whom does the Constitution apply and to whom do Constitutional rights belong?

It would seem logical that our founders intended the Constitution to apply to those who are citizens and those who lawfully reside in the United States.  “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Is it possible to argue that in the statement “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States” that our founders intended to include persons unlawfully in the country?  Is it possible to argue that they intended to include foreign enemies?  I think not.  It is more rational to believe they intended to include even narrower group than all those actually living here.  Certainly a narrow interpretation is justified as a result of the American Indian not having been originally included within the definition of citizen.  It is also true, properly or improperly that they did not include slaves living in the US.  Please understand that I do not argue for either slavery or the exclusion of the American Indian from the definition of American citizen.  I am merely drawing a conclusion that by “WE THE PEOPLE” our forefathers intended to include a narrow group of individuals, those who at the time were able to legally consider themselves to be Americans.  (The 14th Amendment fortunately resolved the issue of citizenship for men and women who were once slaves as well as for the American Indian.  I believe this provides support for this point of view given that if anyone living here were to be afforded Constitutional Rights there would have been no point to the 14th Amendment.)

Further, note that the Constitution in its preamble identifies the objective of providing for the "common defense".  Is it therefore logical that they were prepared to extend Constitutional rights to foreign enemies?  Again, I think not. 

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves” must refer to Americans.  I see no rationale here for the inclusion of people who are in this country illegally whether they arrive as friend or enemy to be included within this paragraph.  Therefore, WE THE PEOPLE of the United States cannot be expected to include illegal aliens or foreign enemies.  Even legal visitors who have been granted temporary privileges to enter and reside in this country should not have the same Constitutional benefits as citizens should they commit a criminal act.   Upon conviction or completion of sentence they should be subject to deportation. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently refused to allow the deportation of persons found to be illegally in this country because the crimes they had committed that had led to their arrest were insufficient to justify their deportation.  It would seem more logical to me that they should have been capable of immediate deportation without due process that is reserved by my interpretation for those who can legally call themselves Americans. 

The Underwear Bomber was read his Miranda Rights fifty minutes after his arrest.  This prevented any continuation of intelligence gathering that might have been conducted by our intelligence agencies or our military from a foreign born, non resident alien flying into this country on a Visa intent on conducting mayhem.  A visa should never grant an individual the complete access to our courts that is enjoyed by citizens.  The man may be talking again but is the intelligence he is offering five weeks after his arrest actionable?  On Christmas Day it might have provided our military the information they needed to strike at or capture additional terrorists as well as the ability to identify those persons he trained with in Yemen, where they trained and who conducted that training.  Five weeks is a long time in this regard and I doubt that this information is of any continuing value.  The key point is that by extending privileges to him that should never have been his to begin with we may have hurt ourselves in the process. 

The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the reported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was moved by our Justice Department from a Military Tribunal at Guantanamo to the City of New York.  Subsequently, due to the refusal of New York to allow the trial to be conducted there it will be moved to some other location but with the intent still to try the man and two of his cohorts in civilian, criminal court.  Considering the preamble printed above, what rationale could there be to try these men in civilian court when a) they are not citizens, b) they were actually captured outside the US and c) they are mortal enemies of this country who were engaged in acts of war that killed close to 3,000 American civilians?  Those who argue that we must do this to demonstrate “who we are” and to thus prove to the world that these men will be treated fairly are arguing that we should show the world that who we are is a bunch of flaming lunatics. 

The Geneva Convention was signed by the United States and as any ratified treaty is the law of the land.  As such KSM can be held as can the Underwear Bomber until full cessation of hostilities.  The Underwear Bomber may also be summarily hanged as an illegal combatant.  He did not identify himself as an enemy, wore no uniform and directed his intended attack on civilians, a clear war crime.  KSM probably requires a tribunal because he was captured at his hideout in Pakistan but in doing so he certainly can be hanged based upon the confession he has already provided.  When a group of Germans landed from a submarine on Long Island during World War II, Roosevelt had most of them hanged.  He didn’t waste the time we waste trying to demonstrate to the world our lunacy in providing Constitutional Rights to people to whom they do not belong.  If our intent in the Constitution is as stated in the preamble then to “provide for the common defense” we must regain our sanity, remove these cases from civilian criminal courts and place these enemies back in Guantanamo where they can await their fates. 

Posted by The Patriot at 2/12/2010 12:16 AM
Categories: Constitution
Tags: Constitution
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.