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...

[Dr. Frank fan]

But not all rights are “inalienable”, just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If the government were to follow your rationale on this point they would be in violation of the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

[George Smiley]

If I visit Canada, do I in effect forfeit my constitutional rights?

You CAN'T forfeit your inalienable rights. (I'm not going to get into the differences between constitutional and civil rights, that's another thread)

The government of whatever your situs happens to be at a given moment has no obligation to recognize any of them, and non-recognition of rights is far more common that recognition of them.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that any of your rights are null and void if they don't like it.

This is one of the virtualy uncountable reasons why the UN sucks. (sorry JimRob)

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[freedomcrusader]

But not all rights are “inalienable”, just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

WRONG. The DoI says "... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Jefferson states right there that 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' are not the only unalienable rights with which the Creator has endowed us.

One of the Federalists' arguments against a Bill of Rights was that it was too hard to list all the rights that people had that the US gov't shouldn't infringe, and the gov't would then think it had a green light to violate those not listed. Hence the 9th Amendment.

[Razz]

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.

Uh, not quite. It says "Among these are...", NOT "just.."

and the Constitutional 'right' to vote is just that,a right given to citizens, NOT a Right endowed by the Creator.

Incidently, all my copies of the Declaration of Independance say “unalienable”, NOT “inalienable”,

[thtr]

Which rights in the Constitution are unalienable and which rights are not unalienable?

[freedomcrusader]

An interesting question. For sure, the BoR was intended to be a list of rights that Congress was not to 'alienate', so to speak.

[Razz]

Which rights in the Constitution are unalienable and which rights are not unalienable?

The Bill of Rights (Amendments I through X) enumerates some of our unalienable Rights.

The right to vote is clearly not one of these (see Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI). The 'right' of trial by jury is another.

Offhand, I can't think of any other rights or Rights mentioned in the Constitution. Did you have something specific in mind, or was that a deliberately obtuse question?

[gnarledmaw]

bump

[MWS]

That is not what I said. Simply put- here was your argument- "The first 10 amendments are a part of the Constitution. Therefore, any part of the Constitution is a part of the 10 amendments." That is a fallacious argument. It is tantamount to saying "All A's are B's, therefore all B's are A's". Or, with another substitute: "All dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs". It's just does not follow logically.

[Brookhaven]

aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggg!!!!!!!!!!

The very fact that we can be having this discussion on a forum like FR shows how far we as a country have fallen. The groups that want to limit our rights have been pushing the idea that our rights are granted by the Constitution, because anything granted by man, can be taken away.

You won't find a single example of a founding father stating that our rights are not God given. You will find plenty of opposition to attaching a bill of rights to the Constitution for exactly the reason we are seeing here. They opposed a written bill of rights because they were afraid someone would argue our rights were limited to that list, or that our rights were established by some document. They aren't.

Every person on the planet, from kings to the lowest pauper, has the exact same rights, because those rights were created and given equally to every person by God. That is the single, underlying principle that our country is founded upon.

I'm appalled (yes, appalled) that there are people on a forum like FR arguing otherwise.

The fact that other governments don't recognize the rights of the people within their borders doesn't mean they don't have the same God given rights as anyone else, it just means their government doesn't recognize them.

[MWS]

That is not what I said. Simply put- here was your argument- "The first 10 amendments are a part of the Constitution. Therefore, any part of the Constitution is a part of the 10 amendments." That is a fallacious argument. It is tantamount to saying "All A's are B's, therefore all B's are A's". Or, with another substitute: "All dogs are animals, therefore all animals are dogs". It's just does not follow logically.

[thtr]

Please tell me. How can you tell the difference between an unalienable right and a non-unalienable (if there is such a word) right. Is there an asterisk (*) beside it or are you making it up?

[thtr]

You are correct. I misunderstood what was posted earlier.

[BabylonXXX]

I believe your assessment on only CITIZENS have rights guaranteed by Constitution and Bill of Rights to be the correct one. How can we protect rights of those under dictatorships and wacko-elitist Arab rulers?

Both of you express a concern about those living outside the jurisdiction of the US government.

You both ask, "How can we protect their rights?"

The US Gov. does not "protect" rights. That wasn't the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Bill of Rights does not require that the Fed. Gov. do anything.

Rather, the Bill of Rights sets forth what the Gov't CANNOT do. It can't search without a warrant. It can't convict without a jury trial (if requested). It can't establish an official religion. etc., etc.

The Federal Government is NOT the protector of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Rather, the Bill of Rights is what protects us FROM the Federal Government.

With this in mind, the answer to your question regarding those in other jurisdictions -- "how can we protect the rights of those living under dictatorships?" -- is simply that protecting their rights is not the Federal Governments job.

The Constitution exists to LIMIT what the Government may do to those living within its jurisdiction (i.e., "people of the United States"). We have never given the Fed. Gov. the power, for instance, to establish a religion. Period. It doesn't matter if that religion is established merely for non-citizens living within our borders. It simply isn't a power the Fed. Gov. has. Likewise with searching and siezing without a warrant. Or, restricting freedom of the press. The gov't has no more power to sieze the printing press of a non-citizen than it does a citizen.

[thtr]

The very fact that we can be having this discussion on a forum like FR shows how far we as a country have fallen.

This forum is the exact place where the meaning of the Constitution should be discussed – and often!

You won't find a single example of a founding father stating that our rights are not God given.

There are none, nada, zero examples in the Constitution that says that the rights enumerated there ARE God given. 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.

If the God given rights go beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; what are they?

[freedomcrusader]

The objection was over whether rights should be listed all, because any such list was necessarily incomplete. Thus, those who objected did so on the basis that by listing some it would give a green light to the gov't to 'alienate' those that weren't listed.

Also, there was a lot of debate over how to express the rights that were listed and which ones to list.

Just because there was a debate with objections doesn't mean that the general principle that men have God-given rights is invalid.

[thtr]

What are these God given rights?

[american spirit]

Here's my two cents. What everyone has to realize is that there are two types of rights namely, "constitutional" and "civil" rights. I believe that anyone born of AMERICAN parents have natural, God inspired constitutional rights. On the other hand naturalized citizens, legal and illegal aliens have "civil" rights, which are those granted to them by the federal gov't. Since the fed's created a federalized citizen then they also have the ability to control those rights by granting certain privileges which are usually administered under state jurisdiction. Examples are right to drive, right to marry, right to start a business, etc.

In the case of foreigners, my belief is that any rulings by SCOTUS or any other gov't. agency is done under the auspices of those civil rights granted to them by the gov't.

[freedomcrusader]

Good grief! The DoI lists three, there are many in the BoR. If you want more than that, go read Locke.

[Straight Vermonter]

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) deals with the rights of non-citizens living abroad. Specifically if they have a 4th amendment right protecting them from search and seizure by the DEA. It covers who the founders viewed as the "giver" of rights.