[Jim W N]

Where does the word "citizen" appear in the Fifth Amendment?

The intent of the first ten amendments is not to grant a list of rights - they are already pre-existent per the Declaration of Independence. They are a sampling of rights the feds are not to violate as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Aliens did not delegate the powers to the feds via the Constitution. "We the People" did via the States. Aliens are not under the purview of the Constitution. They are like U.S. territories, under federal authority but outside the purview of the Constitution.

"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.

The Constitution trumps whatever uncited portion of Federalist 78 you are referring.

However, Federalist 78 does say, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

An invalid law or unconstitutional decision may be ignored by any other branch of government and/or the sovereign states. However, good faith demands they give a reasoned constitutional basis for their rejection of such federal acts.

[The Pack Knight]

The intent of the first ten amendments is not to grant a list of rights - they are already pre-existent per the Declaration of Independence. They are a sampling of rights the feds are not to violate as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Aliens did not delegate the powers to the feds via the Constitution. "We the People" did via the States. Aliens are not under the purview of the Constitution. They are like U.S. territories, under federal authority but outside the purview of the Constitution.

So, if a right is explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights but not a pre-existing right, it is not actually protected by the Bill of Rights? That makes no sense.

Aliens are under the purview of the Constitution if the States say they are when they ratified the Constitution. They did so here by using the term "person" instead of citizen.

"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.

The Constitution trumps whatever uncited portion of Federalist 78 you are referring.

However, Federalist 78 does say, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

An invalid law or unconstitutional decision may be ignored by any other branch of government and/or the sovereign states. However, good faith demands they give a reasoned constitutional basis for their rejection of such federal acts.

Determining whether a law conflicts with the Constitution is a judicial function, not a legislative one.

Hamilton, in Fed. 78, was describing the judiciary's power to declare a legislative act void as unconstitutional.

A more sophisticated version of your view of the Constitution was advanced long ago in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. It is problematic because it undermines both federalism and separation of powers.

Again, you seem to want to recognize in the President unchecked power to ignore the other branches of government. Obama would have loved that power. I'm glad he didn't have it. I think violent resistance would be warranted against any President who claimed such a power.