YES it is. Law and the counsel come from English tradition tempered with the phenominal Christian faith of the English and Scots. Check out Uriel 1975's brilliant articles on Calvinism/Presbyterianism and it's influence upon our founders and our nation's founding.
You seem to want to disregard that rights come from God and any deviation from this norm is an aboration of a men that have become full of themselves, thinking that they are fountainheads of civilization and wisdom. LOL!!!!!!!!!!
It "seems to me" that Jesus didn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Caesar.
Seems to me that Jesus said sell your cloak and buy a sword.
You better read history for ALL, that's ALL evil and statist regimes have instituted gun laws under various STATES OF EMERGENCIES and excuses all to better enslave and control the people.
Jesus says BS on that and He says arm ourselves. God mandated and GOD-GIVEN!
BTW, you may want to look at the Constitution and the remarks of the writers. Even they say the rights came before the Constitution and were the Birth Right of all men and that they came from God and not some King, Government, Bureacracy, etc..
A GOVERNMENT is one of many defenders of those Rights given by God.
Any deviantion of a governmnent to this is a government not doing it's sworn duty.
READ THIS:
Any right GIVEN by government is not a right at all. It is a privilege.
Why should a right be given??
Just "recognise it", protect it and that is all that needs be done.
But to "give it" implies you never had it UNTIL governmnent gave it to you.
Strange Days are here,
CATO
Not true, and I've said nothing to make a reasonable person think so.
The question we're dealing with here is:
Who can legitimately expect to be protected by the Bill of Rights?
We know that one answer to that question is "Not everyone in the world". So even if the rights in the Bill of Rights WERE (which they're not) unalienable rights, the US doesn't necessarily have to protect those rights.
I still maintain that anyone that the US can deport from here on US Soil, is not covered by the Bill of Rights. That is a self-evident fact, that proves Barr wrong. (And me right)
As for the BoRs being unalienable - that is a novel idea, which is in conflict with US judicial precedent. Why do you suppose that the Supreme Court has not used the 14th Amendment to impose the entire BoR on the States? If they were unalienable rights, the USSC would be morally obligated to impose them ALL on the States. The fact is that the high court has deliberately not incorporated all of them into the States' Constitutions. (Forgetting for a moment that the Court was wrong not to apply them based on the Supremacy Clause in Article VI in the first place) The USSC is fallible, but IT doesn't regard the Bill of Rights as unalienable rights, because they give the States the authority to not protect a select few of those rights. (I think the 2nd Amendment is one)
True enough.
Why should a right be given??
Just "recognise it", protect it and that is all that needs be done.
True enough.
But to "give it" implies you never had it UNTIL governmnent gave it to you.
True enough.
Now that we've established those irrelevant truths, my point is that our Government doesn't owe every "person" on our soil the protection of the Bill of Rights. We can ship some of them back, or try them in a military tribunal without a jury.