Posted on 10/18/2001 10:05:22 AM PDT by RebelDawg
I have seen several posts lately where people have made statements that illegal immigrants as well as those persons from abroad visiting here on student, work and travel visas are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights. I have also seen posts by people vehemently opposing that view. I thought about it a while and decided to side with the first group: that is that those individuals who ar enot citizens of this country are not granted the rights listed in the Bill of Rights of the United States of America. My reasoning is quite simple. If you take the stance that the Bill of Rights covers ALL people then what about the gvernments of other countries? does our Bill of Rights supercede those governments? Should we overthrow other governments who violate their citizens first and second ammendment rights? What about China? Good you say??? Well what about England, Canada and Australia? they have clearly violated their citizens second ammendment right! Or is it that they do NOT have those rights and that the Bill of Rights ONLY covers citizens of the United States of America?
Here is a quick quote that I pulled from a sight about the Bill of Rights of the United States of America:
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.Bill of Rights
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.From Article IV
Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.Ammendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesAmmendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Ammendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Ammendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Ammendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Are some of you telling me that the term “the people” as written in the Bill of Rights refers to a global notion of people? I think that is completely absurd, it has the same meaning as in the opening paragraph of the United States Constitution and that is We the People of the United States.
people enjoy only those rights that they are able and willing to assert
In other words, I say you have them and enjoy only those you are willing and able to assert, whereas you would say that you only have those you are willing and able to assert.
Regardless, we both agree that you can enjoy only those rights you are willing and able to assert.
You erected a strawman when you suggest that by opening rights up to non-citizens this somehow puts our government as jurisdictional over the whole world.
False premise. It simply means that the government is not allowed to infringe on the natural rights of anyone for any reason as those rights are not "granted" by government but protected by government.
The only thing limited here is the government's jurisdiction to protect. The government may only protect the rights of its citizens as it's jurisdiction is limited to our borders. So for instance, it may not seek to protect the self-defense rights of English citizens who reside in London. However, it may not infringe upon the rights of non-citizens who reside here or anywhere else. This should be obvious. I am surprised at those who would argue that non-citizens really were not born with the same rights as Americans. This would men that we didn't get our rights naturally but that they came from the government.
A dangerous and stupid assertion as this means that they can be revoked at any time and for any reason.
If we can't trust our government to act equally restrained with non-citizens as well as citizens, then it is only a matter of time before our rights are equally disregarded.
Be carefull what you wish for.
Then they are not natural at all and are the inventions of folly. Either rights are as real as your television set, or they are wishfull thinking.
It’s hard not to read this as a right defined by the bill.
IOW perhaps it should read 'THE people'!
The Declaration of Indepence is the foundational document for the Consitution. It reflects the thinking and mindset of the writers of the Constitution. The fact that human rights are God given is stated plainly there.
The fact that the Bill of Rights was codified despite objection is further justification to believe that the founding fathers did not see those rights as God given and thus HAD to be ratified and agreed to by the states.
Thank you for proving my point! The people who objected to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution did so because they believed people (like you) might one day argue the rights were created when they were codified in writing, instead of recognizing them as pre-existing rights that were being affirmed in writing.
If the God given rights go beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; what are they?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
You don't agree that "amoung" means there are other rights than the three being listed? What about the the right to privacy. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, but courts have recognized its existence. How could they recognize a right that isn't in the Constitution? Because it is a God given right (one of those "amoung" rights).
Pass a law that restricts alien rights? There are then two different lawbooks. One for citizens, one for visitors; with equal protection granted to the laws that apply to their class.
Simply done.
Since the 'right' to vote was limited to particular persons, and was later changed in 4 seperate Amendments, logically, we cannot consider this a natural Right.
Also, when I edited my earlier reply, it resulted in a false statement: the right of trial by jury is, of course, an unalienable.
Again, exactly what rights mentioned in the constitution are you referring to?
In any case, its a pointless question. As stated numerous times in this thread, the Government has no power to grant any rights. The Government derives its authority from the people as enumerated in the Constitution.
Lets follow your premise to its logical.
Sample case: by means of force, coersion, or otherwise, you are detained and forced to conduct hard labor. Your property is simply taken from you. You are brutally beaten if you speak, or pray, or on the whim of your guards. The party enslaving you has more than enough guards and money to keep you in this state perpetually unless an outside force intervenes.
The result of this situation is that you are unable to assert and hence enjoy any right to freedom: to be free from detention without accusation of a crime, to be secure in your person, house, paper, and effect, etc.
Therefore, by your definition of rights, even though this entire scenario occurs within the US, you have no rights.
ergo, your definition of rights is false.
I am not denying the existence of “rights”. We have an abundance of “rights”. But those rights exist because they have been agreed upon through a democratic process, not because God has ordained them. There may have been those that disagreed with this view at the time of the writing of the Constitution but they were overruled and our framework of “rights” were defined by law, not God. Your opinion may take the side of those who believed that “rights” were God given and should not be enshrined by law but the fact is; they were defined as such despite objections.
And if another right like gun ownership, becomes(God forbid) limited to particular persons and changed on various occasions – then will this right no longer be considered “natural”. It seems to me that you can’t define rights by how they are abused.
”the Government has no power to grant any rights. The Government derives its authority from the people as enumerated in the Constitution.”
The Government IS the people!
You ask:
Which rights in the Constitution are unalienable and which rights are not unalienable?
All of them are unalienable. So are all of the rights not mentioned in the Constitution.
How can you tell the difference between an unalienable right and a non-unalienable (if there is such a word) right.
What the heck is a non-unalienable right? If a right is lienable then in what sense was it a "right" in the first place?
There are none, nada, zero examples in the Constitution that says that the rights enumerated there ARE God given.
That's true. The Constitution doesn't delve into the origin of our rights very much. It simply acknowledges those rights as pre-existing.
If it helps you understand things, perhaps you can come to terms with rights as being pre-existing without necessarily being "God-given". If you refuse to believe they are "God-given" I can't object.
On the other hand, that is what many if not most of the Founding Fathers seemed to believe. That fact, however, need not affect your religious views any.
The fact that the Bill of Rights was codified despite objection is further justification to believe that the founding fathers did not see those rights as God given and thus HAD to be ratified and agreed to by the states.
On the contrary. The fact that there was objection to codifying the Bill of Rights in the first place proves that your point is 180 degrees out of phase. Those who objected feared precisely the argument you make here. This point is made by other respondees, and better, so I won't belabor it.
If the God given rights go beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; what are they?
There is not enough space on any computer to list them all. Some of them are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, however. Go look at it. It's not a complete list, but it's a start.
[list taken from Bill of Rights] All of these "rights" are listed in the Bill of Rights. "Good Grief" are all of these GOD given rights?????
I believe someone else tried to explain this to you, but most of the things you listed - if not all of them - are special cases of things like your Right To Be Secure In Your Person, or your Right To Liberty.
For example, you cited the phrase "[no] Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". Now, this isn't exactly a "right", is it? It's an instruction directed towards government. Specifically, it is something government must obey if they will try to violate one of your rights. Which right? Your Right to Be Secure In Your Person, House, etc. And that right is a God-given right. You don't think so?
Here's another example. You cited "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". This is another instruction to government, should they try to violate your rights. The government must do the following: give you a speedy trial, a public trial, before an appropriate jury, if they are going to try to violate one of your rights. Which right? Your Right To Liberty. And Liberty is, once again, a God-given right.
But those rights exist because they have been agreed upon through a democratic process, not because God has ordained them.
Which "agreed upon" and "democratic process" created the notion that we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? I'm all ears.
There may have been those that disagreed with this view at the time of the writing of the Constitution but they were overruled
Yes, they were overruled, weren't they. Especially the Brits - they too were overruled, violently.
So I'm wondering which part of that you think was "democratic" and "agreed upon". Sounds to me more like a vocal radical minority had certain ideas about things and forged a radical document enshrining their views.
An essential part of their views, of course - not to mention, the most radical - was their idea that everyone possessing unalienable God-given rights. This was their philosophy. I happen to agree with it. There is a nation built on this philosophy. It's called the United States of America.
If you really don't like this philosophy then you don't have to live in the USA. You could go to a nation built on different philosophies. To each his own.
our framework of "rights" were defined by law, not God.
Sort of. Our concept of "rights" were defined by documents written by people who believed those rights came from God and tried to enumerate some of them.
And if another right like gun ownership, becomes(God forbid) limited to particular persons and changed on various occasions - then will this right no longer be considered "natural".
No. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. Governments may and will infringe upon this right at various times, to varying degrees. That would not change the fact that it is a right.
Just like Hitler's Germany did not prove that Jewish people did no possess the right to life. They violated that right, but they couldn't abolish it. Right?
Otherwise, what exactly was so bad about what Hitler did? If Hitler was able to metaphysically erase the Right To Life from Jewish persons, then by killing them he did nothing wrong - they had no right to live in the first place. Is that what you believe?
It seems to me that you can't define rights by how they are abused.
No you can't. Good point. That's why no matter how many and how often governments abuse the right to keep and bear arms, it won't re-define that pre-existing right any.
The Government IS the people!
No, it isn't. The Government is the government. It is composed of certain specific people - and not all of them. It derives its powers from the consent of the governed, but that is not the same thing as saying that it "IS" the people, either.
What you describe, a government that "IS" the people, is closer to Pure Democracy (where everyone votes on every single issue and action) than to the democratic republic which is the form of government we have in this country.
And I thought we were discussing the government of the United States as it is defined by the Constitution for the United States, not the government of some imaginary Pure Democracy.
The truth is that the Constitution doesn’t say that those rights are preexisting – anywhere. Yet there are many that insist that the rights are God given. When I ask what those God given rights are, they say look at the Bill of Rights. When I quote from the Bill of Rights, they say well… those are not REALLY rights; those are “acknowledgements” of rights. I guess it depends on what you mean by the word “is” (such as, the government IS the people).
You are either lying here, or mistaken. That is not why you stopped responding to me, because you and I were not discussing "God-given rights" in the first place.
We were discussing the Fourth Amendment vs. Article IV. Remember?
You have little to offer me in the form of insight as you simply ignore the question by claiming that the Constitution confers no rights.
If you don't like the cold, hard truth that the Constitution "confers" no rights (and it is the truth), then why do you ask about it?
”It simply acknowledges those rights as pre-existing” This is convenient but totally unenlightening
Sorry you feel that way. But, it is the truth. I cannot and will not alter the truth in order that you may find it "more enlightening". How "enlightening" would it be for me to lie to you, anyway?
The rights mentioned in the Constitution are treated as pre-existing. That's the truth. Read it and you'll see what I mean.
Again I'm sorry you don't think this fact is "enlightening" but there you have it.
and I might say, very Clintonesque.
The truth and "Clintonesque" have nothing to do with each other, so I don't know what you are talking about.
The truth is that the Constitution doesn’t say that those rights are preexisting – anywhere.
It doesn't say it, no. It also doesn't say that "the people are pre-existing". That doesn't mean that people didn't exist until the Constitution was written. It just mentions "the people", because it is understood that people are pre-existing and are not somehow created by the Constitution.
Same goes for rights.
When I ask what those God given rights are, they say look at the Bill of Rights. When I quote from the Bill of Rights, they say well… those are not REALLY rights; those are “acknowledgements” of rights.
No, they are really rights. The Second Amendment speaks of "the right to keep and bear arms", and that really is a right. So, what are you talking about?
I guess it depends on what you mean by the word “is” (such as, the government IS the people).
Are you a member of the government? Are you a person?
Your answers to those two questions had better be the same; otherwise you contradict yourself (again) by claiming "the government IS the people". Let me know.
I find that hard to believe too. In fact I don't believe it at all. He granted to all mankind the right to Property.
The authors of the Constitution, respecting that right, instructed the government that they could not violate the God-given right to Property, in the form of a lawsuit over twenty dollars, unless the accused had been given a jury trial.
It's an order given by the Bill of Rights to government, not a grant of a right (Property), which of course was pre-existing.
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.