Replies

But I would also point out that the 5th Amendment does allow for the removal of rights (it specifically mentions life, liberty, and property) with "due process", suggesting that criminals may have their rights revoked constitutionally via due process. So I don't see a problem there.

Well, I do.
And I'm not a lawyer.

If the 5th amendment was intended to allow "due process" (as vague and arbitrary a phrase as can be invented) to cancel out all the other amendments, including itself, I can only quote Oliver Hardy and repeat, "What a revolting development this is!"

So you believe criminals should have a right to keep and bear arms in jail? Do you think prisoners in jail should be protected against unwarranted search and seizure? Do you think prisoners in jail should be given their liberty instead of being locked up? The Constitution recognizes that people convicted of crimes don't have the same rights as innocent people.

The Founding Fathers qualified many of the rights in the Constitution for a reason. Read it. There are conditions under which Habeas Corpus can be suspended. They can take private property for public use with compensation. They can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property with due process. It's a product of compromise and a pragmatic understanding of how governments work, not the magical libertarian document of absolutes that many people imagine it to be.