Who does the Bill of Rights protect?

[melloyello]

I'm a big fan of "Bill of Rights" and a proponent of the anti-federalist (like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson), who are the only reasons we have the "Bill of Rights."

For many years, I've pondered whether the "Bill of Rights" should apply to everyone.

After watching the mom shooting her son with a rental gun and continual degradation of parental rights. How do I justify to myself as well as my children how to define who and what is proper, what should we watch and fight?

My feelings are that the "Bill of Rights" should only apply to adult able-bodied Citizens of the UNITED STATES of America. Children, aliens, immigrants, criminals and mentally ill are protected but have limited rights granted to them by the states and Citizens (Personally illegal aliens should not have any rights at all). Under the 9th and 10th Amendment, the states and the people should determine who the BoR applies.

The slippery slope - Should we all prove our valid Citizenship in order to have free speech, assemble and religion and especially the right to bear arms? Should aliens, illegals and immigrants be able to march and demonstrate because we want to remove illegal aliens? and so on?

What are your thoughts?
What rationale do you have to support them?

[Boomboy007]

I see you have an anti-government bumper sticker. Papers, please.

I can understand your feeling, MY, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. Not only do I believe that every person within our borders have BoR protection, but we should try to export observance of BoR protection to the rest of the world.

Granted, we have illegals here who would try to abuse those rights, but that is what criminals do. We need to establish a secure border, and then start deporting those here illegally, as well as prosecute those who knowingly employ them.

If/when we enter another armed conflict where we end up occupying another nation, we establish the BoR there, as well. After actually experiencing freedom on a daily basis, I believe that many of those who initially eschew the concept of freedom and liberty will come to embrace those same concepts.

America used to lead by example. Now she is a prime example of "do as I say, not as I do". The way to regain our moral authority is to practice what we preach. For example, we should not torture, period. Could "enhanced interrogation" save some lives? Sure. But at what cost? Remember that tree of liberty is refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Liberty costs dearly, but it is worth every drop of blood spilled.

You said "My feelings are that the "Bill of Rights" should only apply to adult able-bodied Citizens of the UNITED STATES of America. Children, aliens, immigrants, criminals and mentally ill are protected but have limited rights granted to them by the states and Citizens."

One of the staunchest patriots that I know is in a wheelchair. In fact, defense of his country put him there. Yet, under your rationale, he would be excluded from your "able bodied" requirement. Has losing the use of his legs made him less of a person? Now, I am sure that you probably didn't mean him, but when we start apportioning these rights, these things will happen.

You said "Personally illegal aliens should not have any rights at all." Using that kind of exception, I could take a group of illegally smuggled women or children from another country and set up a basement brothel where these individuals would languish in sexual slavery. Now, if I'm caught, I might be in some trouble for sneaking in illegals, but if they have no rights, then I am fairly immune from any serious repercussions. Is that right? Just think of it being your wife, sister, or daughter who was kidnapped and smuggled to, say, Saudi Arabia (it has and does happen). Do the human rights of your baby girl end at the U.S. border? No, they do not. Should it happen the other way around? Again, no.

Trust me when I say that I feel your agitation. You look around and see the beacon of hope that was your country being dismantled before your eyes. The answer to this is not to reduce liberty, but expand it. Every time you think that maybe this or that group shouldn't enjoy the BoR, remember these words:

"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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right way has never been the easy way.

[melloyello]

Sorry all - bad choice of words, "able-bodied". Came from an Anti-Federalist translation I saw a while back. Found another reference for the meeting minutes translation on the web, "Everyone who is able may have a gun." I like these translations more.

I too have several friends that are disabled in one way or another, including myself. I may not be able to free-stand and shoot a rifle for more than 15 minutes, but I can lay down, sit and stand supported and shoot for a while.

BTW - not anti-government but Libertarian.

[Cooter]

You said it Boomboy...that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Tex4oc]

Boomboy, you should run for office, very well said!!

[Wolfling68]

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson

Forgetting this is the real problem. The Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights, applies to everyone, not just citizens, not just those who are here legally, but everyone. And I agree, we should be exporting the values laid out in our Constitution.

The problem is interpretation. People keep trying to make the Constitution mean what they want it to mean, not what it actually means. They change the meaning of words, they take things out of context, they apply things in ways they were never meant to be applied.

Law, the written laws of a society
Ethics, the gereral agreement of a people on what is right and wrong in a society (professional ethics is a small subset of this) (basically, ethics are group morals)
Morals, the personal knowledge of right and wrong for oneself

The biggest problem our society faces is the elevation of the Law and the destruction of our Ethics, which is born of culture. Our ethics have been sued out of existance, and our culture is being destroyed. The problem with this is Laws can be made to mean anything by the right lawyer, when there is no sense of Right and Wrong. I have been told that, historically, no society that has relied upon the rule of Law to to maintain order has survived.
I have no problem with immigration. But it used to be when a person came to the US, they came to become American. Now when they come, they want to make America like it was back home, but with more money. They come to maintain their own culture, but to make a buck. This is wrong.
We need to re-establish our Morals and Ethics, define and reclaim American culture, give Law the proper framework in which to do its job (which is not to hold society together!!).

[joespahr]

We argue (correctly) on this and othe sites that the BOR does not give you any rights, instead it protects the rights that every human being is born with. Natural rights. Cannot be taken away by any ethical government. Got that. How, then, can we argue that any person-immigrant, illegal immigrant, invalid, whatever, be deprived of these rights just because we feel like they should be?

Immigrants are here legally. They play by the rules. Just because they are not citizens of this country does not make them any less human. Illegals are breaking the law. There are laws in place to handle that. Enforce the law. Don't lower them to a subhuman status-that was one of the arguements in favor of slavery, that blacks were less human than whites. Are invalids any less human because of their invalidity? Children have always been a special case-it is recognized that children have fewer rights than adults, but they also have fewer responsibilities.

The Bill of Rights is merely a codification of basic Human rights. You cheapen it when you try to make it only apply to Americans.

[Sheldon]

SCOTUS already said years ago WRT the 14th it refers to the right of the individual.....

[Bohemian]

My View (Affirmed by the writings of George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Tench Coxe, Samuel Adams, George Washington and others to say the least) is that the Bill of Rights Re-Affirms and Protects your pre-existing rights you were born with...

IT DOES NOT GRANT YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATE, CITY OR OTHER MUNICIPALITY A RIGHT TO CONSTRAIN, LIMIT OR PROHIBIT ANY OF THESE SAID RIGHTS WHATSOEVER...

including but not limited to the Second Amendment, and that it like the others is unconditional...

E.G.: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

The 2nd Amendment states...
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...

The 10th Amendment states...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

E.G.:
The People already have their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms protected from infringement... IT DOES NOT SAY "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Except...

The 10th Amendment has been perverted to interpret "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", a statement that is clearly unconditional as being conditional...

The fact is even a child or a mentally ill person or yes, even a criminal has the inherent right to defend their life by any means necessary...

Obviously, if you are a criminal or mentally ill, you should be under the care and responsibility of a law enforcement agency or mental health facility, whom takes responsibility for your safety as well...

Further, that parents are ultimately responsible for the safety (proper firearms training and handling) and actions of their minor children...

When we allow conditions to be applied to something that is without condition, we are setting precedents for that to continue to be accepted for the "PUBLIC GOOD" and "PUBLIC SAFETY"

This is exactly how they disarmed the people of England, Canada, Australia, India and elsewhere...

First the full-autos, then the semi-autos, then superfluous ammo regulation, then the rest of the firearms... now they have none, and claim the titles of the country's with the highest crimes rates in the world with you guessed it "BANNED FIREARMS"

We only need to look at the Republic of Kalifornia, at the failure of such endeavors even in our own country, whom has the most draconian firearms & ammo laws and bans in the country, and what happened about a month ago?

A career criminal, unable to legally purchase any firearm or ammunition, killed 4 police officers with a state banned firearm and ammo...

The Biggest mass murders in our country's history have occurred in "GUN FREE ZONES"

Piracy on the high seas is occurring because everybody knows the ships are "GUN FREE ZONES"

[melloyello]

Let's get away from being PC.

The Constitution of the United States preamble states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

IMO, the People of the United States are its Citizens and the BoR being within the Constitution only applies to US Citizens and the constitution only applies to us and our children.

If you are not of the United States like my father, you should earn your citizenship like my mother did, being naturalized under Article I of the Constitution.