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.
"You have the right to..."
"Government will not interfere with your right to..."
That's a big difference,
and the solution to your problem.
posted on 10/20/2001 10:22:00 PM PDT
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. ;)
posted on 10/21/2001 8:24:10 AM PDT
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.
posted on 10/21/2001 8:33:34 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson