If our FREEDOMS are SOOOO great, and they are, WHY would we LIMIT them to citizens or residents?

It isn't up to us to tell other countries how to operate.  Our Constitution is ours.  No one elses.

Hello Tm:

You misunderstood my question..  I wasn't talking about other countries..  I was talking about us..  Perhaps you've MISSED the many discussions going on here about the 5th Amendment, and HOW it doesn't apply to people who either AREN'T U.S. citizens, or they don't live here.. I can't get a clear explanation about that, but what IS clear, is that they wanna LIMIT it. 

I'm just wondering WHY??  If it's soo great to HAVE, why don't they want other people to have it?  Personally, I think it's a GREAT freedom.  Not only should we TOUT it to the world, but we should OBSERVE it at home.

excon

Well to be too free with what we have is foolish.  If I give you what I need, I am becoming dependent on YOU.  And you are going to resent it.  So we have BOUNDARIES for a reason.  IT gets complicated when people confuse that fact with giving no inch at all for fear they will lose something they do not even need because they already are swimming in a sea of too much.  There is room and food to spare if we all cooperated globally, but that is not gonna happen, ex.  We can dream on.  But not in our lifetimes, the way things are going.

We are just rats in a cage at present, ex.

I think we agree on this excon.

The rules of the world are when in Rome do as the Romans do.

When someone is on US soil they are subject to US law. Same for when a US citizen is on foreign soil they are subject to the host countries laws.

When a foreigner enters the US we treat them under US law (most of the time) and they are tried in US courts under US law. Although it seems if you enter the US illegally you get a get out of jail free card.

If your a citizen and on a No Fly List then some think some of your rights should be taken away from you.

If they are not on US soil then the prevailing laws of the land dictate.

For military action the UCMJ would dictate.

" Give me your poor ,your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... Except for THOSE people  ".

The French wrote that on the statue not the American people. It came with the statue.

Hello again, deaves:

We APPEAR to agree, but I don't think we do..  In fact, you're making MY case for me..  You say geography is the reasons why the Bill of Rights are LIMITED..  For WHATEVER reason, you DO want to LIMIT them.  

Hence, my question..  If these freedoms are SOOO great to HAVE, WHY do you wanna DENY them to people???

excon

Maybe it's time to head to Liberty Island with a surface grinder?

excon. I don't want to deny them but other countries don't want our laws applied to them.

The only way to change that is to force our Constitution on other countries. Liberia's Constitution is a mirror of ours at the time it was established but they have changed it to their standards.

I don't think China, Russia, France or any other countries are going to dump their laws and adopt the US Constitution.

Wrong again.... That's the replacement plaque that Donald Trump is gonna  have installed to show how great He has made America !

Can you give a specific example of what you're talking about?

Put down the bong !.......... The Phrase is from the poem "The New Colossus" by American Emma Lazurus. The Plaque was installed in 1903 , not in 1886 when the monument was opened !

We are not the rulers of the world.  Each country has it's our rights that they believe belong to their people.

Now if a person is subject to the US criminal justice system then yes they should be given the rights given by our Constitution.

Hello again, my:

Wow..  I musta wrote my question very badly..

excon

Not really....It's just that many are a little slow on the uptake...

Hello:

I musta written my question very badly..  Sorry.  Lemme see if I can clarify.. 

There's been several threads here recently about WHO the 5th Amendment applies to..  SOME people think it ONLY applies to U.S. citizens, or to people who are physically IN this country..  I gather from that, that those people want to LIMIT the 5th Amendment in some fashion or other..  Hence, my question..

If our rights/freedoms are SOO great, and they're SOO wonderful to HAVE, why do we want some people NOT to have them??  This has NOTHING to do with IMPRESSING our Constitution on China, or Brazil..  Have I cleared it up?

excon 

Ok for example your asking why would we not want people on the No Fly List to have all their rights and not deny them the 2nd amendment right. Is that a fair example?

Hello again, deaves:

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but lemme answer this way..  I think we've already agreed about the Unconstitutionality of lists, in and of, themselves..  But, if the government wants to KEEP a list, it should be for informational purposes only..  It should NOT serve to deny the listed person a Constitutional right.

excon

PS>  Hopefully that helps, but I was really asking about the word "person" in the 5th Amendment. 

Hello Red:

If you read the whole thread my point should become clear.  I should have worded it better.

excon

If you read Article IV of the Constitution you will see the term citizen and person are used interchangeably.

Hello again, deaves:

Do you mean this??

-------------

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

----

I see where they used both words, but NOT interchangeably..  A citizen is distinct from a person.

If there's others, point me to 'em.

excon

No CON, reading your whole thread does not make your point clear.

So far as I know the freedoms granted to "persons" by the Constitution and all laws under that umbrella (which is really every Federal, State and local law) are extended to everyone and everything so legally designated (including corporations, which are legally considered to be "persons") within the legal jurisdiction of the USA. Those freedoms granted exclusively to the People (not Constitutionally the same thing as "persons") are granted to all citizens but may be withheld from non-citizens.

There are efforts afoot to withhold certain Rights from US citizens by those that want a list of "suspects" and "persons of interest" from being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights without first having those Right suspended by "due process", but I'm unaware of any other efforts to summarily deprive anyone else of their Rights.

So again, please give an example of what you're talking about. 

Irrespective of the time frame and circumstances around the placement of the plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty the poem is NOT part of US jurisprudence. It's only a nice sentiment germane to the circumstances of the US at the time and may no longer be applicable.

Hello again, Red:

Uhhh, when you said THIS:  ".. Those freedoms granted exclusively to the People (not Constitutionally the same thing as "persons") are granted to all citizens but may be withheld from non-citizens."

You're saying something about rights being withheld, I think. I wanna know about that..  Can you point me to the part of the Constitution that SAYS that???

excon