Who is covered by the Bill of Rights

Self | October 18, 2001 | Self

[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

I see several mentions of “Citizen” or “people of the United States” contained withinin the United states Constituion but absolutely no references to “non-citizens”.

Examples:

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 grievances

Ammendment 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.

My final thoughts.
I see absolutely nothing in these documents staing that anyone other than citizens of the United States of America are covered and protected by them. I also find it to be absurd to think that our forefathers set out to write documents that would cover and if you believe that then also govern the entire world. If this were the case they would have been stating that no government in the world was no longer valid except for the new American government. I think it is quite clear that this was not their intention but I see that others disagree...

[RebelDawg]

Thanks alot Smartaleck! Sorry that just sounds weird ;-) but really thanks for the post. Excellent.

Please see post 52 if you have not yet!

[Lev]

This means, in summary, that government cannot violate the rights of immigrants just because they are immigrants.

Absolutely. Thanks from an immigrant from far east :)

[thtr]

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the “Bill of Rights” Article 4 is most defiantly a part of the Bill of Rights.

[MWS]

That is a fallacy. Simply because all parts of the Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, it does not follow that all parts of the Constitution are a part of the Bill of Rights.

[DryFly]

As conservatives, such as Rush, are often heard to say, "Words mean things." If the drafters of the 14th Amendment meant the same thing when they referred to both "citizens" and "persons", then you would think that they would have used the same word. Construing the ambiguity against the drafter of the ambiguous language, it should be interpreted broadly so as to cover more people, rather than fewer.

[thtr]

they clearly believed that rights were bestowed by the Creator

It might be comforting to you that the rights granted in the Constitution come from God but it really defies logic. The Constitution had to be ratified to become law and has had parts added and deleted since its inception. I doubt if God left some rights out or changed his mind.

[ctdonath2]

As I said: the DoI provides the philisophical framework guiding the legal structure of the Constitution. That the BoR recognizes natural/preexisting/Creator-granted rights (instead of granting them) is widely understood.

[thtr]

Are you saying that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are not the Bill of Rights?

[Dr. Frank fan]

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the “Bill of Rights” Article 4 is most defiantly a part of the Bill of Rights.

How can you have written these two statements simulatenously without your head exploding? ;)

Article 4, the one you cited, is not an Amendment to the Constitution. It is Article 4 of the Constitution.

[Dan Cooper]

The United States was founded on the principle that all people have natural rights, ie. The Declaration of Independence. The Constitution sets up a Federal Government to protect these rights only for the Citizens of the United States. However, it would be inconsistent to deny these rights to non-citizens while they happen to be in the United States. There are a lot of non-rights "rights" that non-citizens should not have a claim to, welfare, "free" education, "free" healthcare, even the right to be here, but the rights outlined in the BOR should apply to non-citizens while they are here.

Just because we believe that all people have rights, even if their present government or society denies them these rights, it doesn't mean that the United States has an obligation to secure their rights for them. We should export the concept of individual rights wherever possible, but the United States government is only obligated to it's own citizens.

[rebdov]

ALL people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. We do not rely on government toconfer rights. We have them as a condition of our existence as guaranteed by G-d. A person may waive his rights by making a compact with some sovereign like a king, but his rights are Divine.

[gunshy]

What is the Bill of Rights?

[thtr]

Each article of the constitution is called an amendment! Article 4 is the 4th Amendment. Haven’t you ever read the Constitution?
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html

[DryFly]

Please drop the issue thtr. It's a loser for you. Articles and Amendments are two different beasts. Article 1 establishes the Legislative branch. Amendment 1 protects free speech, religion, etc. Article 2 establishes the Executive branch. Amendment 2 provides for a well regulated militia. Etc, etc.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Article 4 is the 4th Amendment. Haven’t you ever read the Constitution?

You sure are funny. Here is the 4th Amendment:

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.

And here, for the record, is "Article the fourth" of the original Bill of Rights, two of which were apparently not ratified:

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.

We call it Amendment II now, since it was the second one in this list which was ratified.

However, here is what you cited to me way back in your post #51:

Article IV : Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

As you can see, this is neither "the Fourth Amendment" nor is it "Article the fourth" of the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment).

It is the opening of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Just like you correctly said in your post #51.

Get it?

[Razz]

I'd say the 14th Amendment answers your question in explicit terms.

Amendment XIV

(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

If that's not enough for you (although I fail to see any way in which one can question the Constitutionality of the Rights of non-citizens (aka: persons) while within the Territory of the United States.),the Constitution makes explicit differentation between laws applying only to citizens and those applying to all persons. Consider these:

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States,

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President

XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI The right of citizens of the United States to vote ..

Further, the Declaration of Independence explicitly states the origin and nature of those Rights enumerated in the Constitution and also those "retained by the People"(Amendment IX):

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

As for what occurs in on the high seas or the territory of other Nations, those people and events are not subject to the U.S. Constitution. This does not mean that,in the view of the United States Constitution, those people do not have the same Rights, but merely that the U.S. government,which was instituted "to secure these Rights" to those persons within its jurisdiction, has no authority to guarantee their unalienable Rights.

[thtr]

” ALL people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

But not all rights are “inalienable”, just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your “right” to vote or your “right” to choose Coke over Pepsi is not granted by God.

[freedomcrusader]

It might be comforting to you that the rights granted in the Constitution come from God but it really defies logic. The Constitution had to be ratified to become law and has had parts added and deleted since its inception. I doubt if God left some rights out or changed his mind.

Please, tell me - where in the Consatitution does it ever say that the U.S. government grants a right?

Also - why does the Constitution say that rights "shall not be infringed" if it's really the Constitution that grants them in the first place.

They argued over the wording that would best state what rights they thought they needed to explicitly protect.

Why have a 9th amendment that says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." if the Constitution is the document that grants rights?

Your statement is what defies logic, not the philosophy of natural rights as embodied in the DoI and the BoR.

[Dan Cooper]

It might be comforting to you that the rights granted in the Constitution come from God but it really defies logic. The Constitution had to be ratified to become law and has had parts added and deleted since its inception. I doubt if God left some rights out or changed his mind.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it is a limitation on the powers of government. Amendment 9 states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution doesn't tell the people what rights they have, it tells the government what it's limitations are, including some of the important rights of the people that it cannot infringe.