Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.
The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.
means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions. It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all, but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).
Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".
The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial ...
This refers to "the accused". It also refers to *all* criminal
prosecutions, though, so clearly the nationality of the accused is
irrelevant. Sixth Amendment rights apply to anyone the federal government
prosecutes, citizen or otherwise.
The Seventh and Eighth Amendments make no mention of any party other than
the government. So it cannot demand excessive bail from anyone, citizen or
The last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights again mention "the people".
The Constitution as a whole mentions citizens, as distinct from generic
people, in only a few places. The first requires the President to be a
citizen. The next is Article IV, Section 2, where notably paragraph 1
mentions citizens but paragraph 2 says "a Person" instead, clearly
intending to refer more broadly to any human being. The implication from
that is that anywhere the Constitution refers to "person" rather than
"citizen" it should be interpreted as meaning any person, period.
The Amendments after the Bill of Rights rarely mention the word "citizen".
When they do it is generally in connection with voting rights, which are
of course restricted to citizens.
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the 7th
Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
The party being protected *from* is the US Government.
And the consensus of experts is:
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the
same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans
most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any
serious controversy among experts over this matter.
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop: