The quote you used (”that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”) doesn’t in any way claim that non-citizens are eligible for the same Constitutional rights that citizens are given, such as voting and so forth. Liberals certainly wish they were, however.
Unfortunately for both you and liberals, the Supreme Court (which DOES determine the intent of the Constitution) has ruled numerous times that the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to non-citizens. Illegal aliens don’t have the right to own guns, either. Cry me a river:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-aliens-dont-have-2nd-amendment-rights/
It's true the the Constitution/Bill-of-Rights gives some rights (voting, like you cite), others it does not but reaffirms preexisting rights.
The right to the Grand Jury determining whether or not to prosecute, for example, is/was a preexisting right inherited from England's common law.
The right to really own property and not have government barge in and simply take it also was a preexisting legal right. (And it has been argued is philosophically a human right.)
The right to have a stable set of rules, not turning at the chance-whim of whoever happened to be in authority, was also preexisting in English jurisprudence.
All three of the items listed are affirmed in the Fifth Amendment; as these are legal rights and declared to be available to any person
, does it stand to reason that this restriction on government legal procedure is applicable only to Citizens? Do non-citizen residents [or nationals, or visitors] not have the right to have the Grand Jury determine if they should be prosecuted? Is their property freely available to the government should they covet it? Is it ok to change the rules of the proceedings during the proceeding [violating due process] because they are not citizens? — Since the Fifth says No person shall be […] deprived of life […] without due process of law
and you say that non-citizens are not eligible for constitutional rights, does this mean that it's a-ok to simply kill non-citizens without cause? If so, would such be murder? If not, why not?
And that's only the fifth amendment.
Unfortunately for both you and liberals, the Supreme Court (which DOES determine the intent of the Constitution) has ruled numerous times that the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to non-citizens. […] Cry me a river:
Ah, so the strict procedure for putting someone to death outlined in the fifth amendment constrains the government when the person in question is a citizen? It's good to know that no person
really means no person that we don't accept as having these rights
— man, what would the founders say to this?
"in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution"
— Thomas Jefferson"We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever."
— John Adams"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
— George Washington