|
|
The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens is palpably false. It is an indictment of our education system that any American could think such an outrageous thing.
The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were educated men. They chose their words carefully. They debated over precise word choice. One can assume every word they chose was done with a purpose.
The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of “people/persons” and the concept of “citizen.” For example, Article I, Section 3, says “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States…”.
A “person” is therefore different from a “citizen.” Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens.
This distinction is seen again in Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Again, you may be a person, but you can’t be President unless you are also a citizen. The drafters of the Constitution knew when they wanted it to apply to people and when they wanted it to apply only to citizens.
The first two paragraphs of Article IV, Section 2, clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “person.” It reads:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Therefore, only citizens are entitled to “privileges and immunities” but all persons charged with a crime who then cross state lines shall “be delivered up.” It does not matter if you are a citizen or not if you are a fugitive. Of course that makes sense.
The point, however, is that the Constitution and its Amendments clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “persons.” “Citizen” means those either born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or naturalized. “Persons” and “people” mean everyone.
For instance, the First Amendment states that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”. The First Amendment therefore grants to all people the same protection against certain congressional action, regardless of citizenship status.
The Fourth Amendment, likewise, applies to the “people,” and not just citizens. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”.
Likewish, the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not just citizens] shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The notion that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens is incorrect. It even applies to those in the country illegally. For instance, the government cannot keep an illegal alien locked up indefinitely. An undocumented worker will still get an attorney appointed to him if charged with a crime. I hope this little blog post helps alleviate that misconception.
In light of the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the recently passed NDAA, among other legislation, it appears the Constitution doesn’t even apply to citizens any longer.
And that is sad.
A Tennessee division of the Department of Homeland Security has put the ACLU on a “terrorist watch list.“
Soon, all dissent will be labeled “terrorist” by the feds.
And remember all of the conservative cheer leading behind the notion that “terrorists have no rights.” If “terrorists” have no rights, the next logical step is that the ACLU, as a terrorist organization, has no rights. If the ACLU has no rights, no one that dissents has them.
I have heard some say that the feds will never make the leap between “foreign” terrorists and “domestic” terrorists. They argue that citizens of the United States will always have the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If you believe that, you are exactly where the statists want you: cheering for the very notion that will enslave you.
You also have no recollection of U.S. history: The U.S. put American citizens in internment camps during World War II for “national security” purposes. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the name of “national security.” Both of these examples took place during war, you say, so we need not worry. But, alas, we are at war: The War on Terror.
If we fail to stop the federally inspired hysteria behind terrorism, they will come for the rest of us that dissent.
You can count on it.
With the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens*, abortion will once again be the topic du jour – for the next several months.
There are two separate and distinct issues in the abortion argument that are invariably merged together by both the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” camps. They are:
1) Should abortion be legal?
2) Is there a right to abortion in the United States Constitution?
That these two completely different questions are treated as synonymous in the debate is a sad commentary. It is yet another example of how we, as Americans, think that whatever our particular policy objective might be, that we must impose it on others by the force of law.
Within the context of the abortion debate, the process works like this: No matter my answer to the first question, my answer to the second question must be the same. This does not follow and is intellectually sloppy. The rationale is that if one believes in something as a matter of public policy, then the foundation of that public policy must be found in the Constitution. That line of reasoning is a non sequitur. It is nonsense. It is simply wrong.
The answers to both questions are absolutely and completely independent of one another.
Personally, as an answer to the first question, I have an absolutely weak and unconvincing belief that abortion should be legal for the first trimester. As to the second, I can state unequivocally that there is no right to an abortion in the United States Constitution. The “right” was created out of whole cloth by justices that felt it was their duty to set policy – and not interpret and apply a written document with specific words with specific meanings.
If the Supreme Court had actually followed the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, the federal government would be out of the abortion issue all together, and each state would have to address the issue. This horrifies the statists, of course, because it is much easier to control us all from D.C. than it is from 50 different state capitol buildings.
——–
* Yet another example of a “progressive” statist championed by a Republican. Stevens was nominated to the bench by Gerald R. Ford.
Linda Lodenkamper wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post taking the paper to task for its position regarding Stephanie Villafuerte.
Ms. Villafuerte had been nominated to become Colorado’s next U.S. Attorney. A controversy arose and she withdraw her name from consideration.
Ms. Lodenkamper wrote:
Your editorial applauding this action ends with the following statement: “Villafuerte may not have done anything wrong, but from what she’s said publicly, she lacks the ability to prove it.” When did your newspaper change to “Guilty until proven innocent?”
This is an all too common misunderstanding. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” has exactly one application – in a criminal court room.
It has no application to politics. None.
We’ve all heard the phrase before. We must vote for the “lesser of two evils” each election season. That’s all we can do.
It is my humble opinion that this way of thinking is what has gotten us into the mess we are in today. The mess that involves massive amounts of government spending, regulation, debt [...]
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
