We have one American Justice system and I THOUGHT it included due process for every PERSON. Some say it doesn't. It's confusing isn't it?

If you thought that i am surprised in you rosieG.. I am not even american and i know that is not the way things are in the USA.. Most people in the USA cannot afford the ""due process"" so many of them will engage in plea bargaining for a lower penalty rather then access the full ""due process"" and wind up free but bankrupt...  And anyway you have different law systems depending on what sate one lives in or what state one is accused of a crime in..There are many different law systems in the USA..

Some folks are more easily confused than others .

But it's still the best system on earth !

Please be specific. WHO do you mean by "some"? What, exactly, is the case where that "some" prevented due process and constitutional protections within U.S. borders where the Constitution is in force? Provide an example with supporting links, just as I do when I spoon-feed you useful knowledge on practically a daily basis.

Hello Rosie:

As you know, when the founders wrote the 5th Amendment, they used the word PERSON.  But, SOME people, as we have observed, think PERSON means U.S. CITIZEN..  I, however, think person means person..  Not to intrude on your question, Rosie, but what I'd like to ask my right wing friends, is HOW they construe "person" to mean "U.S. Citizen".

excon

Hello More,

Nahhh..  If the Constitution is only "in force" WITHIN U.S. borders, I'm SURE it says so.  Can you point me to that passage? One would think one wouldn't have to ask, especially after your last sentence.

excon

For right now, it's all we have. Sometimes it does justice and sometimes not.

Notice this prophecy about the Messianic Kingdom with Jesus as King:

(Isaiah 11:1-5) A twig will grow out of the stump of Jesʹse, And a sprout from his roots will bear fruit.  2 And the spirit of Jehovah will settle upon him, The spirit of wisdom and of understanding, The spirit of counsel and of mightiness, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.  3 And he will find delight in the fear of Jehovah. He will not judge by what appears to his eyes, Nor reprove simply according to what his ears hear.  4 He will judge the lowly with fairness, And with uprightness he will give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth And put the wicked to death with the breath of his lips.  5 Righteousness will be the belt around his waist, And faithfulness the belt of his hips.

hello there Rosie

Hey there ex...

The constitution certainly does explain who it is for, you just  have to read it.

The preamble starts with "we the PEOPLE of these United states...people=persons

It goes on to explain that these "Blessings of liberty" are for "Us" and "OUR" posterity.

It closes with the statement  "Do ordain and establish this constitution for these United States of America"

Seems pretty clear to me or would you like me to explain how the Declaration of Independence also spells out the why and who...

Nope i do not think it is.. I would much rather face trail in Australia then in most places in the USA.. I am not a rich person so i could never afford a lawyer and a jury trial in the USA.. But i could afford it in Australia..

Quite true. Most people would assume it to be obvious that crimes commited at Guantanamo would be procecutable under US law since Guantanmo is under the control of US authorities. Yet from all I hear, that is not the case at all.

But I think your question is more about 'foreigners' having the right to due process, eg Illegal immigrants ;-)) I am not entirely sure of that. People can seek asylum, and if it is granted they are under the protection of the asylum granting country, but that would hardly apply to somebody who is at oods with the laws of the country they are in. Then again many 'illegals' have by now lived in the US so long that they could be considered 'Common Law citizens' of the USofA. The same way people who live together long enough can have their partnership recognized as a Common Law marriage. Example: Rosario from Will & Grace :)

At some point we won't have to rely on a fancy lawyer and a judge being swayed by fanciful words.

(Isaiah 11:1-5) A twig will grow out of the stump of Jesʹse, And a sprout from his roots will bear fruit.  2 And the spirit of Jehovah will settle upon him, The spirit of wisdom and of understanding, The spirit of counsel and of mightiness, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.  3 And he will find delight in the fear of Jehovah. He will not judge by what appears to his eyes, Nor reprove simply according to what his ears hear.  4 He will judge the lowly with fairness, And with uprightness he will give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth And put the wicked to death with the breath of his lips.  5 Righteousness will be the belt around his waist, And faithfulness the belt of his hips.

(Romans 3:24, 25) and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, because God in his forbearance was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past.
(Romans 6:23) For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.

Morning, des:

What's up?

Bait and switch much???  You TELL me about the Constitution, but you QUOTE from the preamble..  Here's what you need to know..  The Preamble is NICE.  The Constitution is LAW.

excon

There will be no need for any lawyers or money for the forgiven on the day of Judgement.. But for those who are unforgiven no amount of money or fancy lawyers will be available to them on that day..

Hello again, More:

Nothing, huh?  Tick tock....

excon

You never intrude excon! We're pals. Long-time pals! I think some folks  construe "person" to mean whatever the  he** fits the need at the moment. Which can and does vary. It's perplexing and annoying and odd. In my opinion. Thank you for your reply excon and Happy Thursday!  :)

So you're saying the Constitution applies outside the US borders? So if you are in North Korea you get Constitutional protection?

So any non -citizen is treated differently des? Justice is available only to US citizens? What about those who are not citizens but serve in the military legally? Legal immigrants who are still citizens of their country but live and work here des and and also die for the country? Are they considered  to be ineligible? I am not being sarcastic. You have confused me and usually you unconfuse me. Thank you for your reply my friend and Happy Thursday to thee!  :)

So legal immigrants who fight in our military and die for our country are not eligible for protection? I addressed this in your other reply des.

Thank you for your reply tex and Happy Thursday! :)

What about legal immigrants? They are not citizens but they fight in our wars and die for our country. Are they deprived of the benefits of the American Justice system? Thank you for your reply JakobA and Happy Thursday!  :)

Good morning Rosie....

Not necessarily, If a foreigner is legally visiting the U.S. and gets arrested, they are afforded constitutional protections..

I will continue later m;dear, I have to do some work today.....

till then, have a great day

Hello again, Rosie:

Interesting, isn't it??  When you try to say "person" means "U.S. Citizen", you have to tie yourself up in knots, don't you?

What CLEAR to me, is that right wingers DON'T WANT the Fifth Amendment to MEAN what it MEANS, so they PRETEND it says what they WANT it to say..  They're not even slick about it either...

What I wanna know, is, if you're only a PERSON inside U.S. borders, what are you when you're OUTSIDE.

excon

Looking forward to des. :)

A shapeshifter I guess excon. This is really taking something that seems logical and simple to me and making it incredibly complicated with lots of provisos." If, then". I don't understand WHY the interpretation of the Constitution varies so based SOLELY on partisan politics. I know. Naive right? But I am. I mean it is in English. We speak English. How can we get such different interpretations and INSIST ours is the only one that is accurate? No disrespect to des. He's a good friend and I"m pretty sure he's your friend too. He is very logical and reasonable and fair. This time I'm having a very hard time understanding the why of his view. But he said he'll come back and pick up where he left off and explain more. I think you and I are simple,straightforward folks excon. I don't mean that disrespectfully. I think we just take what's there and go with it. I know des is one smart cookie. I don't think we're slouches in that department. How can we see it so differently? T'is a puzzlement. Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)