Posted on 10/18/2001 10:05:22 AM PDT by RebelDawg
Absolutely. Thanks from an immigrant from far east :)
It might be comforting to you that the rights granted in the Constitution come from God but it really defies logic. The Constitution had to be ratified to become law and has had parts added and deleted since its inception. I doubt if God left some rights out or changed his mind.
How can you have written these two statements simulatenously without your head exploding? ;)
Article 4, the one you cited, is not an Amendment to the Constitution. It is Article 4 of the Constitution.
Just because we believe that all people have rights, even if their present government or society denies them these rights, it doesn't mean that the United States has an obligation to secure their rights for them. We should export the concept of individual rights wherever possible, but the United States government is only obligated to it's own citizens.
You sure are funny. Here is the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And here, for the record, is "Article the fourth" of the original Bill of Rights, two of which were apparently not ratified:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We call it Amendment II now, since it was the second one in this list which was ratified.
However, here is what you cited to me way back in your post #51:
Article IV : Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States
As you can see, this is neither "the Fourth Amendment" nor is it "Article the fourth" of the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment).
It is the opening of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Just like you correctly said in your post #51.
Get it?
Amendment XIV
(1868)Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
If that's not enough for you (although I fail to see any way in which one can question the Constitutionality of the Rights of non-citizens (aka: persons) while within the Territory of the United States.),the Constitution makes explicit differentation between laws applying only to citizens and those applying to all persons. Consider these:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States,Further, the Declaration of Independence explicitly states the origin and nature of those Rights enumerated in the Constitution and also those "retained by the People"(Amendment IX):
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
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President
XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI The right of citizens of the United States to vote ..
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
As for what occurs in on the high seas or the territory of other Nations, those people and events are not subject to the U.S. Constitution. This does not mean that,in the view of the United States Constitution, those people do not have the same Rights, but merely that the U.S. government,which was instituted "to secure these Rights" to those persons within its jurisdiction, has no authority to guarantee their unalienable Rights.
But not all rights are “inalienable”, just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your “right” to vote or your “right” to choose Coke over Pepsi is not granted by God.
Please, tell me - where in the Consatitution does it ever say that the U.S. government grants a right?
Also - why does the Constitution say that rights "shall not be infringed" if it's really the Constitution that grants them in the first place.
They argued over the wording that would best state what rights they thought they needed to explicitly protect.
Why have a 9th amendment that says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." if the Constitution is the document that grants rights?
Your statement is what defies logic, not the philosophy of natural rights as embodied in the DoI and the BoR.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it is a limitation on the powers of government. Amendment 9 states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution doesn't tell the people what rights they have, it tells the government what it's limitations are, including some of the important rights of the people that it cannot infringe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.