Skip to comments.Who is covered by the Bill of Rights
Posted on 10/18/2001 10:05:22 AM PDT by RebelDawg
click here to read article
Do you conclude that "the people" really means "the citizens?"Yes as a matter of fact I do. What do you confer it to mean? "the humans of the world"???
The Bill of Rights says nothing about the rights being granted by God.
I would say instead that the US is the only government that RECOGNIZES these rights of all men...
All persons within the borders of the USA are protected by our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This is why the Constitution refers to the people and persons and not citizens.This is just "your" interpretation. Pleas epost facts to back up your opinion.
That's because it had already been said in the Declaration of Independence: "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Notice that Jefferson did not intend his enumeration of 3 rights to be taken as a complete list...
This is not quite accurate. In fact, SCOTUS has walked a fine line on this question, never definitively settling the question of whether "the people" refers to the citizenry of the US or people in general. For example, non-citizens were found to be partially protected by 4th ammendment prohibitions regarding search and seizure in the late 60's. The court's reasoning for this, and the limits of partial protection were extremely murky. It is my belief that if the current, more strictly constructionist, SCOTUS were forced to decide the issue you would have a good chance of establishing that constitutional rights apply exclusively to citizens of the US.
Since these rights are inalienable, they don't come from the government, therefore cannot be limited to the governments jurisdiction. They come from God, and are limited to HIS domain.Sorry but you are referrin to the Declaration of Independence not the Consgtitution or the Bill of Rights.
Generally speaking, the Bill of Rights doesn't "apply to" citizens or non-citizens. It applies to government.
It is for the most part a list of things which Congress and/or government is not allowed to do.
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law" to do various things. The Second Amendment says a certain right "shall not be infringed" (by government, presumably). Amendment 3 forbids gov't from quartering soldiers. Amendment 8 forbids government from enacting excessive bail and "cruel and unusual" punishments. Amendment 4 effectively forbids government from searching and issuing Warrants without "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Amendment 5 mentions a grab bag of things government cannot do, too numerous to reiterate here.
These are all instructions to government.
Of course, in the course of these instructions to the government, at several points many (pre-existing) "rights" are mentioned (not "granted"). Often they are described as "the right of the people" to do something.
Amendment 2 mentions "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; I guess this means the author thought that "the people" possess the right to keep and bear arms. Amendment 4 mentions "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses," etc. I guess this means "the people" possess that right to. Article 1 even mentions "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Others go along these lines: Amendment 7 mentions "the right of trial by jury", without describing who has this right. In the process of forbidding the government from depriving any "person" (it begins with, "No person...") of "life, liberty, or property" except under certain conditions, Amendment 5 seems to be saying that each "person" currently possesses that right by default.
Amendment 6 is the only one which seems to me to actually create or "grant" certain rights: the right of speedy jury trial, the right of Counsel, etc. And in a way, these, too, are instructions to government - namely, government is not allowed to prosecute people except under these conditions.... To whom does Amendment 6 grant these "rights"? To "the accused", whoever that is.
Finally we have the underappreciated 9th and 10th Amendments, which say effectively (1) just because it ain't written here don't mean it ain't a right, and (2) when in doubt, the right belongs to the States or "the people".
So in all these cases, when it actually mentions (again, not "grants") certain "rights", these "rights" appear to belong to each "person", or to "the people". Unless I am mistaken, immigrants too qualify as "people", so the Bill of Rights applies to them too. (And if you are going to say it doesn't, because of Amendments 9 and 10, you really need to justify this somewhere else in the Constitution, or among the several State Constitutions.) This means, in summary, that government cannot violate the rights of immigrants just because they are immigrants.
None of this implies that government cannot kick them out of the country, however. There is no intrinsic "right" to come to this country from another and to stay here, and Congress is specifically granted certain power over immmigration issues, namely "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States", in Article 1 section 8. Since Congress is granted that power, and the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", one can safely conclude that Congress can do things like Kick Immigrants Out For Not Obeying Its Naturalization Policy.
And since this power is specifically "delegated to the United States by the Constitution", this would be also in perfect accord with Amendment 10.
As for Wars and what we can do to people like foreign leaders, I would just say that it is fairly clear that "the people" mentioned in the Constitution were never meant to be overseas people in other countries. That would just be ridiculous. For one thing, Wars (which specifically are mentioned in the Constitution) would be essentially impossible if that were true.
In sum I would say that the Bill of Rights, if it can be said to "apply to" anyone other than government, applies to "the people" within the borders of this country, and no others. Immigrants like all other "people" have pre-existing "rights" which government is forbidden from violating.
However, "the right to stay here" is not among them and Congress has all the power it could ever need to kick them out. Which is the key point.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense!
The only difference between an alien resident and a US citizen is the former cannot vote or become President or Vice-President. You still pay taxes, you are still subject to our draft, etc.
You can be a citizen of a state by reason of residency and it's this usage that is referred to by the US Constitutency.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense!
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.