DAR
Simple, the category of “person” necessarily includes the category of “citizens.”

The category of “citizen” does not include the category of “persons.”

All citizens are persons, not all persons are citizens.

So they can, consistently use the term “person” in a category that refers to citizens.

What they cannot do, with any understanding of basic English, is say something refers to “any person” and then have that category apply only to citizens. That makes no sense. “Any person” includes all “citizens.” “Citizens” does not include “all persons.”

Please give the founders a little more credit than to suggest they didn’t know this.

Bigd: “Our Constitution does not apply to them and the “rights” afforded by the court are for those who are here, in our territory.”>>

DAR
The SCOTUS says you’re wrong. You lose. No exceptions.

D.

Does this mean that any person can be elected president citizen or not but can’t be elected more than twice or does the word person indicate citizen since that is a requirement?

The Supreme Court ruled that the XIV Amendment only affords all persons equal protection if they are in the United States. This court ignored that precedent and indicated that habeas corpus was guaranteed to them under our Constitution. It is not. It is a recognized part of law and has been long before we were a country or had a Constitution. The right thing is to afford them what is allowed under international law. Our Constitution does not apply to them and the “rights” afforded by the court are for those who are here, in our territory.

DAR
Now you’re just being dishonest. There is a difference between saying something applies to a “citizen” and saying something applies to “any person.”

Notice, they didn’t just write “person” but specifically, “ANY person.”

I don’t think the founders were so GD stupid that they didn’t know the difference.
A child knows the difference. More importantly, the SCOTUS knows the difference (see the case referenced above).

Besides, you already conceded this when you said:

“The right thing in this case is not necessarily the Constitutional thing…”

So you know your claim is categorically unconstitutional, and false. You just don’t care.

D.
—————-
an⋅y
–adjective
1. one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification:

per⋅son
–noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child

SAV
You just can’t stand a group that fights for civil rights, huh? I’m not surprised.

BLAKE
So Sav- in your mind, “the right thing” is what you perceive it to be, but not what we perceive it to be? How strange.

SAV
You believe that citizens should be treated in certain ways because those ways are the right ways. You want to treat Gitmo detainees differently; you want to treat Gitmo detainees in ways other than the right ways.
See, Blake, in your attempt to be clever, you simply exposed how superficial your reasoning skills are.

Oh, and the SCOTUS can’t read plain English either. And when they do read and understand plain English, *they’re* wrong. Got it.

Very convincing!

D.
—————
“…nor shall any State deprive *ANY PERSON* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to *ANY PERSON* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” –ibid

This phrase certainly means that the people refer to citizens of the United States. The people of the US are its citizens. The phrase people and person indicate citizens.

The right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, everywhere people is mentioned it means the citizenry.

The 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. The giys who wrote it clearly said that children born to citizens of other countries were not US citizens. They were not subjects of the country (had no allegiance to it) so they were not subject to the jurisdiction (as in a subject of the country). This is written clearly by those who wrote it.

The problem you libs have with the Constitution is that you see it as a document in which government gives certain powers or rights to the people. The Constitution is a document from the PEOPLE (citizens) that tells what powers the citizens grant it. It also affirms, in the Bill of Rights, that the pre-existing rights enumerated shall not be infringed by the government.

With regard to your claim about the SCOTUS. They got it wrong because they too took the approach of what government allows.

The specific issue of habeas corpus is addressed in the Constitution but it is not a new idea. The writ of habeas corpus existed as a principle of law long before we became a country. In the Constitution the PEOPLE are telling government that they may not suspend this long established writ.

The Constitution does not apply to people who are not citizens because people means citizens when used in the context used in the Constitution.

However, habeas corpus is a long established legal principle and is part of international law and a human right.

As I said, they have human rights and they are subject to international law. They are however not covered by our Constitution.

As we sit here and write Obama is preparing an Executive Order to allow these people (and anyone the government deems a threat) held indefinitely and without trial. Be sure to keep some of your venom for your messiah because he is doing exactly what Bush did.

We cannot call them POWs technically because they do not fit the definition but we have given them the rights of POWs. Many had some sort of hearing and it was determined they could be released. If no one will take them we have to hold them. What would you suggest we do?

I say send them home and let them deal with their problems there.

The others could receive a trial if we let the military commissions go through like planned.

As for habeas corpus, we told them why they are being held. Some are held as combatants and if they did nothing else wrong except shoot at us then we can hold them and do not need to charge them.

The issue is a tricky one but our Constitution is from We the People (the citizens). It tells government what we allow them to do.

As for being the right thing to do. Following international law is good enough. How do we know who has been charged and who is waiting for a trial?

They were picked up by the military and should go through a tribunal. The criminal courts should handle criminal matters and the military should handle matters of war.

Four Winds

Natural Born…

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
…
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.Source