Can anyone cite article and section of the US Constitution granting equal rights to non-citizens?

Question

Specifically, I'm wondering about the recent Supreme Court decision to allow detainees in Guantanamo to have civilian trial instead of military tribunals. If you can cite the specific article and section of the constitution that mandates this, I'll look it up.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Well, your question evidences a complete lack of understanding of Constitutional Law. The Constitution and the applcability of its provisions have been interpreted by the Federal Courts since the days of Justice John Marshall a couple of hundred years ago. Whether Habeus Corpus applies in a situation such as detaining non-citizens in Guantanomo where the USA exercises dominion and control would never be specifically addressed in a document such as the Constitution because each and every circumstance of applicability could never have been anticipated. Thus, the Constitution is interpreted and questions regarding the applicability of its provisions are decided by the Federal courts. That is how it must be, otherwise our Constitution would have never survived all this time.

What they have been granted by the decision is not civillian trials, rather they have been permitted to challenge their detention (Writ of Habeus Corpus) in Federal Court. That is because these people are not formally 'prisoners of war', rather they are accused of supporting terrorism. All the court said is that our government must allow them to challenge their detention in a court of law and that the most recent act setting up the tribunal system did not give them an adequate substitute for the Federal hearing. So, the government will have to try to justify holding these people thru adequate evidence and then try them or release them if they cannot produce adequate evidence. Where exactly is the problem with that? Or should we just permit our government to hold people indefinitely without evidence because someone somewhere with authority believes that they might be a terrorist or criminal? No thanks, I know that some seem to want to live in the old Soviet Union, but I sure don't.

Source(s):

Constitutional Law by Erwin Chemerinksky

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Very informative answer. Gave a bit of history, cogent info, and corrected a misconception on my part. Would have given a 5 rating but didn't like the mean tone of the first sentence (even if true) or the uncalled for sarcasm of the last.

Answer 2

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, there are three key individual rights that are protected:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

The latter two, in Article 1, Section 10, are also prohibited of the states.

Habeas corpus, which requires an authority to prove to a court why it has cause to hold someone, is a key individual right. A bill of attainder is a bill written to punish one person or group of people. An ex post facto law is one which retroactively makes an act a crime.

Article 3, Section 3 is also very specific about how a charge of treason can be brought, and that only a person convicted of treason can be punished for treason (no "corruption of blood").

Look at last 10 words of 1st paragraph

The U.S.Constitution applies ONLY to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is a document that restricts what powers are given to that government and how they are used. The grantors of that power to the Federal Government are the citizens of the United States... PERIOD!

Source(s):

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_r…

Answer 3

There is no provision on “juridical persons”; as for “natural persons”, the key provisions related to individual rights—including the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, and the 14th Amendment, due process and equal protection clauses) are phrased to apply to all persons regardless of citizenship.

Specifically, anyone prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

There are a few rights reserved for citizens (e.g., the right to vote, the right to hold most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office).

Congress can make laws for noncitizens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens, however the Administrative Branch (the President) cannot.

Answer 4

"In all criminal prosecutions, ***the accused*** shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Doesn't say citizens or non-citizens anywhere in that.

Source(s):

Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amend…

Answer 5

[Section. 8.]

[No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.]

[The cases of U.S. v. Brown,[6] U.S. v. Lovett,[7] and In re Yung Sing Hee[8] establish bills of pains and penalties as punishment without trial, and included within the prohibitions of bills of attainder. The precedent that best reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri.[9] It states,

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

U.S. v. Lovett was a case historically relevant to taking away pay checks of government workers Congress could accuse of being Communists. This was an asset forfeiture case. It states:

"Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are 'bills of attainder' prohibited under this clause." ]

Source(s):

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_att…

Answer 6

The Supreme Court decision does not allow detainees to have civilian trials instead of military tribunals. You misunderstand the ruling. The Supreme Court ruling merely re-instated the writ of habeas corpus. Habeas Corpus basically says that anyone held by the US on US soil (and military bases are considered US soil) is entitled to know what charges they are being held for, the evidence against them in these charges, and to appear before a court of law in order to establish if there are grounds that warrant their being held.
The Bush administration has a problem with the detainees in places like Gitmo. Since Congress has never declared formal war against Iraq they can not be considered POWs (if they were they'd be under strict military control). So that is why they are given the term 'enemy combatants' and why Alberto Gonzoles took away their writ of habeas corpus (illegally I might add). Without the writ of habeas corpus being removed the military could not legally hold these people in Gitmo uncharged for an unlimited amount of time.

Answer 7

This one is pretty simple. When writing the Constitution, the framers never considered that an imperialistic administration might be kidnapping & locking up people outside the borders of the country. The concept of 'war' had a very different meaning then.. and was much simpler. The bad guys invaded, you beat the snot out of the bad guys, tried & hanged the traitors, and that was the end of it.

You'll notice that when apprehended within the boundaries of the US, even non-citizens and illegals are offered all the rights and comforts afforded by the constitution (unless being charged under the "patriot act", when even citizens can have their rights stripped.. frightening!), and are rarely even charged with being here illegaly.

The problem is; since these 'enemy combatants' did not wear the uniform nor wave the flag of any official country, they cannot be called 'prisoners of war'. Notice also.. that officially, we have not been in a state of war once in this conflict, since we are not fighting with any recognised country perse.

And to those that constantly spew the 'rights' that enemy combatants have under the 'geneva convention'; do you know what that same agreement has to say about that? To paraphrase.. "An out of uniform, irregular soldier, found fighting after after combat operations have stopped, may be tried in the field and executed by firing squad" (I'm sure those aren't the exact words.. but that's the gist of the regulation).

How about we get out of the forign intervention business altogether, take care of our OWN country, and not have to worry about these complicated issues anymore?

Save America; Register, vote & LIVE Libertarian!

Source(s):

www.LP.org

Answer 8

The closest relevant part is that part of the 14th Amendment (Section 1) which reads: "No state [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But I think that the SC decision was erroneous; enemy combatants have never been considered to have the same protections as citizens -- until now.

Answer 9

Right next to the definition of American Ideals.
Its called implied.
By American standards, we aren't people who approve of indefinite incarceration without due process, and sure not without charges being filed.
It is against the very fabric of American beliefs.
Try reading a History book and finding out what our founding fathers where trying to avoid when they designed our Constitution!

Any action that can be interpretted as a threat to our own system should be declared unconstitutional and was.


Maybe you should reread that decision and figure out what it was really about.

Answer 10

Some say that equal rights is Equal Protection.

Congress has tried to pass an Equal Rights Amendment but so far have not.

But here is the Map You can clearly see that the RedsStates are opposed to Equal rights. Which might I add were cleverly drawn as Blue States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Equal…

Answer 11

Unnecessary. US is signee to Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, ratified by Congress, holding US to certain
international standards when stupid neo-cons skipped out on
that day of school. This was taught from fourth grade civics
class all thru to last year of high school. Look it up.

Source(s):

Toe Fungus

Answer 12

All the supreme court decided is that they have rights to ask civilian courts to review the trials, nothing more.

Answer 13

I believe the constitution refers to "persons"

Answer 14

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were created equal.

Answer 15

It's right next to the law where you have to pay an income tax.

Answer 16

Doen't exist. and it shouldn't.

Answer 17

I am so freakin mad about that whole thing. It's a joke. Ah, I'm not going to get started.

Answer 18

The Justices that made that decision are enemies of this country, nothing more. If this were a liberal's war, these same justices would have made the opposite decision. They should be in prison.

Answer 19

no, because it does not !!!