Replies

but you idiot....you are ignoring the entire template......this is written ONLY FOR CITIZENS. That’s the context.

No, it's not; the context of the Bill of Rights is explicitly laid out in its own prologue:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

It explicitly spells out that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to add declaratory/restrictive clauses to ensure that the government's powers (a) won't be misconstrued, (b) won't be abused, and (c) tempered in a manner beneficial for the government-as-an-institution. — It would be entirely improper to take them as binding against citizens because the citizens are not the government.

You need to get your brain out of the left brained programming world and learn a little something about the broad view, the big picture. You’re so buried in details you’ve forgotten WTF you are even reading!!

The Bill of Rights?
It's a collection of further declaratory and restrictive clauses (that is to say constraints) placed upon the government.

The left-brain is precisely where you want to be when dealing with law; many of the terribad [judicial] decisions we've seen in the past hundred years are precisely elevating expedience over the actual text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, take for example Schenck v. United States:

We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Look, they are explicitly saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights, but because Congress has a right to prevent things of a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils they can ignore the Bill of Rights, namely the First Amendment prohibition on abridging the freedom of the press [or speech].

And you're trying to tell me that the big picture somehow makes the Constitutional constraints on government only apply when there's a Citizen involved?