Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MWS
===============

My main problem with the view that the Bill of Rights
applies only to citizens is that such a distinction would view the government
as the entity that bestows the rights...that view would hold that the government
can strip non-citizens of the rights mentioned.
That would seem to imply that it is the government itself bestowing the rights..."
# 23 by MWS

===============

MWS, you are mis-understanding the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of the rights of men.
It is a list of rights that our government will not interfere with.

Instead of,
"You have the right to..."
it says,
"Government will not interfere with your right to..."

That's a big difference,
and the solution to your problem.

181 posted on 10/20/2001 10:22:00 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: exodus
Technically, I am not disagreeing with that. I was looking at a point of view with which I disagree and reducing it to conclusions which follow from its premises. It was reductio ad absurdum, not a statement of my actual beliefs. ;)
186 posted on 10/21/2001 8:24:10 AM PDT by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

To: exodus
I would also refer you to my post #147 - You cannot view the Bill of Rights as recognizing rights as being held by all men while viewing it as only respecting them in regards to citizens without certain implications in regards to the nature of the nation.
187 posted on 10/21/2001 8:33:34 AM PDT by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson