It seems to me that in discussions with opposing points of view about the US constitution, there must be a great deal of ambiguity. If there were not, then why would the US constitution continually cause people to interpret it in different ways?

eta: by people I mean ordinary people who post on forums online. Scholars who study the constitution, and even judges who award rulings different to those in the past even though they may be referencing the same section of the constitution.

There are some issues that are not that ambiguous based on overwhelming Supreme Court precedents, including guaranteed rights to non-citizens.

But, ultimately, the Court will decide.

If the Gobberment wants to afford some Rights to individuals who are here illegally it does not make them citizens. No way, no how. Even if it gets the Demoncrats more illegal voters.:)

None of your cites makes any swinging dick who falls across the border a "CITIZEN OF the United States of America". Go back to High School and learn some Gobbernment 101. :lol:

And even they disagree.

Please point out where I stated that they would have the rights of citizens or it makes them citizens?

I said the Constitution distinguishes between the rights of "the people" including non-citizens, as the Court has affirmed on numerous occasions over the last 200 years, and rights of citizens.

Yes that seems to be the case.

The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the fact that so many people tout the constitution and violations of it, and yet it really doesn't seem that much of it is really guaranteed because it might depend on how an individual judge feels about an individual case.

Even such things as guaranteed rights aren't always awarded. See gitmo as an example. Many of those prisoners were taken from other countries, deposited in a US jail and have never been given the right to a 'speedy trial' in order to prove their innocence if possible. I understand that people will argue that some of them are prisoners of war etc, but from an outsiders point of view, it still seems a very hypocritical situation.

eta: of course, the onus really is on the court to prove guilt rather than the prisoner needing to prove their innocence, but that doesn't seem to be the case in gitmo either.

The Constitution is for the citizens of the United States, not for the Citizens of Canada, not for the Citizens of Poland, not for the Citzens of Mexico.

People here Illegally are not Citizens, therefore our Constitution does not apply. Period.

The Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent which limits the interpretation of any one justice.

It took the Supreme Court awhile, but it did affirm the prisoners at Gitmo do have constitutional rights, albeit limited because of their status as prisoners of war.

Yes I understand that.

It doesn't stop the average joe from trying to make an unmakable point though does it?

Nor does it make Enemy Combatants in Gitmo "Citzens" who have all the Rights afforded under our Constitution. That is not what the Supreme Court said. Nice try....

Nope...it sure doesnt.

The fact remains that the US, like the constitutions in nearly every democratic country in the world treat "the people" as meaning more than just citizens.

That is probably the case in Australia; if not, it would be the exception.

But yet it does not make them "Citizens" now does it? Nor does our Constitution provide for such.

Again, I never said that prisoners in Gitmo have the same rights as citizens.

I said the Court affirmed that they have some basic rights of "the people", including habeus corpus.

Why has Obama failed to close Gitmo as he promised?

They have "limited" Rights, nothing more nothing less. I would agree they should just close Gitmo. But Obama has failed to follow through on this promise.