Who is covered by the Bill of Rights

Self | October 18, 2001 | Self

[exodus]

===============

My main problem with the view that the Bill of Rights
applies only to citizens is that such a distinction would view the government
as the entity that bestows the rights...that view would hold that the government
can strip non-citizens of the rights mentioned.
That would seem to imply that it is the government itself bestowing the rights..."
# 23 by MWS
===============

MWS, you are mis-understanding the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of the rights of men.
It is a list of rights that our government will not interfere with.

Instead of,
"You have the right to..."
it says,
"Government will not interfere with your right to..."

That's a big difference,
and the solution to your problem.

[exodus]

"How can we protect rights of those under dictatorships and wacko-elitist Arab rulers?"
# 3 by RasterMaster
********************************

"...Freedom applies to countries as well as individuals.
....I have the right to discipline my kids,
....but I don't come into your house and discipline your kids."
# 168 by exodus
===============

To: exodus
But you'd discipline someone else's kid
if they were a guest at your house and set your kitchen on fire!
{whether or not some liberal says it's "okay"}

# 180 by RasterMaster
===============

Yes, I would.

And I've told everyone that if their kid "acted out,"
(that's Socialist for "causing trouble")
I would not "tell Daddy," I would take care of it myself.

Funny, even known troublemakers don't cause trouble at my house.

[exodus]

===============

To: HarryKnutszacke
Look at the 14th Amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is a distinction made between "citizens" and "persons."
I don't think we should be reading "citizens" unless the word "citizens" is actually used.
# 33 by BikerNYC
===============

I still feel that since the Constitution
is about the creation of a government,
and how it will deal with it's subjects,
that in context, it plainly is referring to citizens.

You do have a good point, BikerNYC.

[exodus]

===============

"...On another note I just thought of this...
Can you legally purchase a firearm in the United States if you are not a citizen?
I'm not sure if you can or not. Does anyone know this?..."
# 35 by RebelDawg
===============

I believe you can, RebelDawg.

Every firearm is legally required to be registered,
but I've never heard that you "had to be a citizen" to register your weapon.

Remember, also, that all the old movies assumed that anyone could have a firearm.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

You missed the carefully placed word 'legally'! Without 'legally' not much of what I wrote makes any sense, now does it? The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

[MWS]

Technically, I am not disagreeing with that. I was looking at a point of view with which I disagree and reducing it to conclusions which follow from its premises. It was reductio ad absurdum, not a statement of my actual beliefs. ;)

[MWS]

I would also refer you to my post #147 - You cannot view the Bill of Rights as recognizing rights as being held by all men while viewing it as only respecting them in regards to citizens without certain implications in regards to the nature of the nation.

[Publius6961]

ergo, your definition of rights is false.

Au contraire mon frere. There is no denying reality.
Substitute "clothes" for "rights" and you can see how silly your conclusion seems...

If you can't sense, touch, enjoy and embrace them, you don't have them.

[Publius6961]

American Citizenship should be precious, and confer certain rights that should not pertain to non-citizens.

This is the central issue, and we should not wrap ourselves around the philosophical axle about what "rights" are or where they come from. That is a distraction and unproductive.

I would clarify your statement to say that citizenship confers our Republic's duty and obligation and commitment to protect, defend and maintain those innate rights as an American citizen.

The US can not and should not attempt to do likewise to everybody in the world to prove dedication to that idea.

[Publius6961]

....but I don't come into your house and discipline your kids.

Well, if your brat comes to my house and kills the cat, and you don't deal with it, you can count on the fact that somebody would deal with him.

[exodus]

"...Freedom applies to countries as well as individuals.
....I have the right to discipline my kids,
....but I don't come into your house and discipline your kids."
# 168 by exodus
===============

Well, if your brat comes to my house and kills the cat,
and you don't deal with it,
you can count on the fact that somebody would deal with him.
# 190 by Publius6961
===============

Actually, I would expect you to "deal" with him.

I don't believe in delayed punishment,
and I don't believe in
"I'm going to tell your daddy," either.

[exodus]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
"I believe that you mis-understand the concept of a right, dhuffman@awod.com.
You said,
"Only AMERICANS enjoy the Right to Keep and Bare Arms legally!"
"Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the Bill of Rights..."
"The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression..."
1) If there were not a Bill of Rights, I would still have rights.
2) If I weren't an American, I would still have rights.
3) If there were laws against rights, I would still have rights.
4) Whether American or not,
NOBODY has the "right to lethal political expression"
5) People who believe in a "right to lethal political expression,"
whether individual or government,
are a major reason that others realized
that they needed to protect themselves."

# 176 by exodus
===============

To: exodus
"You missed the carefully placed word 'legally'!
Without 'legally' not much of what I wrote makes any sense, now does it?..."
# 185 by dhuffman@awod.com
===============

I caught the "legally," dhuffman@awod.com,
but when when you said,

"Only AMERICANS enjoy the Right to Keep and Bare Arms legally!"
"...Dissenters must cite the document, of equivalent weight as the Bill of Rights..."
"The terrorists likely exercised their First Amendment Right to political expression..."

I got the impression that you believed
that if others don't have a legal, government-recognized right,
that they are being "bad" for acting as if they had any rights at all.

[exodus]

===============

"If the rights are inherent in all men,
and the US chooses only to recognize them in citizens,
but not in non-citizens,
it is denying rights which by definition
those people have by virtue of living,
and thus is not truly advocating freedom.
Just food for thought."
# 147 by MWS
===============

Beautiful, MWS.

I believe that, too.
If a man is on United States controlled territory,
his rights should be recognized,
except in time of national emergency,
when even a citizen's rights are curtailed.

[Razz]

Substitute "clothes" for "rights" and you can see how silly your conclusion seems...

If you can't sense, touch, enjoy and embrace them, you don't have them. If you want to trade your natural rights for clothes, that's your decision. Nothing you do, however, infringes on my natural rights.

Your logical fallacies are laughable and can be most simply demonstrated by asking: Do you have intelligence? If your answer is yes, can you "sense, touch, enjoy and embrace" it? Then by your logic you have no intelligence.

Natural rights are equally intangible. Not being able to "sense, touch, enjoy and embrace" them does not change their reality.

PS If you are so small minded as to be offended by the example, then you deserve to be offended. I will operate under the assumption that you are intelligent enough to comprehend the irony and humor, until facts prove otherwise.