Posted on 03/18/2024 10:18:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here is one for you. I was reading the Social Security guide last night. If you are a felon your social security payments are suspended. If you have been arrested and charged, your social security payments are suspended in some cases. Not convicted mind you, just arrested and charged.
60 years or so ago we were taught that felons lose many of their rights including the right to vote. Guess that was wrong?
The right to “self-defense” is an inalienable right that governments and states CANNOT abridge; thats the entire sticking point for the Left about the 1st and 2nd Amendments
It is a GOOD ruling-for individual rights-as well as placing the state where it should be
The ruling forces states to respond to
the iterests and concerns of their constituent. It does mean ILLEGAL ALIENS should be arrested and dealth with according to the law interms of deportation and or naturalization
Sharon. Sharon. Sharon. Making a mockery out of the judicial system as Democrats do.
Yes, “our” God given rights. U.S. citizen’s God given rights.
OUR Constitution only governs U.S. citizens not every person in the world.
The Forever Wars/Make Every Country a Democracy crowd would probably like to read it that way.
That is pretty much how I see it. See post #84.
If the Constitution was intended to protect God given rights universally it would mean protecting them for all human beings globally not just ours. That is certainly a ridiculous idea.
...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.
Since the word "citizen" is used in the beginning of section 1, it would seem that "person" was used purposely in the section I posted above.
It is a complicated legal question.
To your specific point my counter argument would be that the section you quote elucidates specific rights that shall not be abridged but does not extend to the broad scope of rights that most citizens enjoy.
I say "most" because there are exceptions even for citizens such as the limitations on minors, those on felons, those with mental and/or physical disabilities etc.
In this case I would argue that illegal aliens, by virtue of their hostile presence in our jurisdiction, enjoy those basic rights enumerated above in the 14th A. but very little more. They are handicapped by a complete absence of legal standing to be in U.S. jurisdiction at all.
I know there is legal precedent for legal aliens to purchase and possess firearms but I am not aware that such exists in regard to illegal aliens. There may be.
They are entitled to the equal protection of the law but the question is does the law allow the possession of a firearm by someone who violated the sanctity of our jurisdiction in the first place? Someone whose very presence is a direct violation of the boundaries of said jurisdiction?
It's sort of a "Starship Troops" kind of a thing. Citizen vs. civilian.
Yes indeed.
not really. Right to defend ones self is inherent as a God created human. Some don’t have a constitution to protect those but they don’t need a constitution to protect them. It just might be more difficult depending on the despot or which form of government the person is living under. Anyway my state actually has a stronger constitutional guarantee.
Of course everyone in the world has the right.
The U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens and those in our jurisdiction legally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.