Who has constitutional rights?

[woodwork201]

" Nuances Of Us 14th Amendment Omitted In Yearn Interpretation "

* Obvious Limits Of Responsibility And Civics *

First and foremost is that us constitution is expected to provide solvency for us states and sovereignty for us citizens and that includes competent decisions when extending citizenship .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism .

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

usmessageboard.com

* Us Solvency And Us Citizen Sovereignty Entitled Without Question *

The us 14th amendment has extended equal protection of its laws , however there is a difference between negative liberty of protections and positive liberty of endowments , and those whom are not subjects of us jurisdiction are not entitled to positive liberty of endowments .

Us citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment that includes a contingency that those becoming us citizens by birth must be born of individuals whom are subjects of us jurisdiction and not simply subject to it that is imbued within the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Whether one wishes to contest that the term " thereof " , which is added to the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction " , means that those born must have been born to those whom are " subjects of us jurisdiction " becomes irrelevant given how the extension of citizenship should be implemented , so thate solvency of etas unis and sovereignty of its citizens is provided .

* Moral Relativism Within Nature Versus Altruistic Idealism *

First principle of naturalism and political science are not dismissed because of misconstrued interpretations of us 14th amendment .

The first principles of naturalism and political science indicate that prior to the existence of a social civil contract according to a constitution , each individual is subject to the moral relativism within nature and to improve an opportunity for survival and quality of life natural freedoms are exchanged for protected rites of behavior , which are enforced posthumously through retort .

At its inception a state is comprised of citizens , whom are subjects of a state on whose behalf interests of a state lay , while non citizens are not subjects of a state and remain subject to natural freedoms and moral relativism within nature ; and , those first principles of naturalism and political science continue to exist in history .

I'll have to wait until I have an hour to try to disassemble that post but I can say right now it's all meaningless. Your linked thread said "wrights". After that, nothing else you say matters.
I'll

 

[woodwork201]

" Nuances Of Us 14th Amendment Omitted In Yearn Interpretation "

* Obvious Limits Of Responsibility And Civics *

First and foremost is that us constitution is expected to provide solvency for us states and sovereignty for us citizens and that includes competent decisions when extending citizenship .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism .

Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments

" Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments " * Express Agreement Or Disagreement With These Premises * Does any agree or disagree that " equal wrights " advocates must make a distinction between negative and positive wrights ? Does...

usmessageboard.com

* Us Solvency And Us Citizen Sovereignty Entitled Without Question *

The us 14th amendment has extended equal protection of its laws , however there is a difference between negative liberty of protections and positive liberty of endowments , and those whom are not subjects of us jurisdiction are not entitled to positive liberty of endowments .

Us citizenship is a positive liberty of endowment that includes a contingency that those becoming us citizens by birth must be born of individuals whom are subjects of us jurisdiction and not simply subject to it that is imbued within the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Whether one wishes to contest that the term " thereof " , which is added to the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction " , means that those born must have been born to those whom are " subjects of us jurisdiction " becomes irrelevant given how the extension of citizenship should be implemented , so thate solvency of etas unis and sovereignty of its citizens is provided .

* Moral Relativism Within Nature Versus Altruistic Idealism *

First principle of naturalism and political science are not dismissed because of misconstrued interpretations of us 14th amendment .

The first principles of naturalism and political science indicate that prior to the existence of a social civil contract according to a constitution , each individual is subject to the moral relativism within nature and to improve an opportunity for survival and quality of life natural freedoms are exchanged for protected rites of behavior , which are enforced posthumously through retort .

At its inception a state is comprised of citizens , whom are subjects of a state on whose behalf interests of a state lay , while non citizens are not subjects of a state and remain subject to natural freedoms and moral relativism within nature ; and , those first principles of naturalism and political science continue to exist in history .

You're really suggesting that non-citizens are not bound by the law of the States or by Federal law?

There is no naturalism or principles of naturalism in the United States. The colonies were under the rule of the King of England and bound by English law. The states had laws at the time of the revolution and they kept those laws after the revolution. There were both statutory laws and common laws. After the revolution, the states began to form constitutions of their own, and new laws, based on those constitutions. The people voted for those constitutions and surrendered part of their liberties for the benefits of government. It was by choice that they surrendered not their natural rights because they were long surrendered by then but, instead, their vote was acknowledgement that they had already surrendered any claims to naturalism.

Just like buying a home in a subdivision with a home-owners association and bylaws. Those bylaws were put on the title when the house was built and the bylaws stay on the title basically forever, unless the original bylaws spelled out the means to change or remove the bylaws and that process, whatever it is, was followed. Otherwise, generation after generation, those bylaws remain in effect. In the same way, our forefathers traded some of their liberty for the benefits of limited government. The pact, or bylaws, or we can call it a constitution, that our forefathers agreed to with the others in the state remain in effect, generation after generation, and they can only be changed by the procedure that our forefathers established.

Then, the states all got together and created a national constitution, and the states surrendered their own sovereignty to the national government. Once again, that contract, those bylaws, or constitution, lasts forever and can only be changed following the process that our forefathers agreed to.

So you can take your anarchist views of the world and take them somewhere else because you have no naturalist rights in the United States. Here, we have a constitution, and we're all bound by it, just as is the Government.

In the Constitution, there are limits on government, saying which rights the Government can or can not interfere with. In fact, the Federalists knew that the Bill of Rights was not even needed because the Constitution didn't give the Government permission to interfere with any one's rights. It also didn't give the Government permission to interfere with the rights of non-citizens. If an explicit grant of authority was understood to be required in the first case, then it is also required in the latter case - because there's no explicit differentiation in the Constitution.

So back to the question you ignored. Can the Government use cruel and unusual punishment against non-citizens, with or without the benefit of trial or attorney?

I'm not going to even try to dissect that rambling word-salad. I'm just going to tell you that there's no such thing as a positive endowment or negative liberties. Those are theories for a bunch of college professors and have no place in our constitution other than as talking points for theorists. The rights in the Constitution, all of them, are God-given rights, human rights, and they existed before the Constitution was created and every person on earth has those rights in their fundamental form. Tyrannical governments interfere with those rights but they don't remove the rights.

The Constitution doesn't grant or endow any right; it prohibits the Government from interfering with rights. There are no rights protected in the Constitution that have an "except when" clause - other than the right to vote in the 14th Amendment.

 

[woodwork201]

illegal's do not have any constitutional rights

Neither do you. You have human rights, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence to have been given by God. The Constitution grants you no rights; it only protects those rights that God has given when he created you as a child of God, as a human being.

Now if you'll just show me in the Constitution where it says that illegal immigrants, or any other criminals, rights are different from yours, where God didn't give them t he same rights, where they are not children of God, then I'll agree with what you say.

 

[woodwork201]

they are human rights not constitutional rights,, and everyone gets them,, except the 2nd,, that ones for americans only,, it says so,,

if you bothered to read them you would know that,,

Really? Where does it say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Americans? Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? I have the original, release 1 with 27 amendments, as ratified in 1789. You clearly have the living version, where the rules are made up on the fly.

 

[progressive hunter]

Really? Where does it say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Americans? Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? I have the original, release 1 with 27 amendments, as ratified in 1789. You clearly have the living version, where the rules are made up on the fly.

where it says "THE PEOPLE"

who do you think they apply to??

 

[San Souci]

That’s not a right that’s a



Easy, don’t try to over through the government … don’t send people to kill your VP … Don’t kill any body … to tell people to change the count on your election… don’t make fun of people who are mentally or physically challenged ,there’svv probably more but these are good for a starts …

PPFFFFFTTTT!

 

[San Souci]

where it says "THE PEOPLE"

who do you think they apply to??

Citizens. Illegals are Unpersons.

 

[woodwork201]

The Declaration of Independence is law, ratified July 4, 1776 by the Second Continental Congress.

It's scary for the Constitution that people like you claim to be supporters and defenders of it.

There's no law in the Declaration of Independence. It was simply an agreement to split from England.

thats what I said,, and its more than just I-IV,, more like I-VIII except II, that ones specific for americans,,

You're an idiot. How does "People" mean something different in the 2nd Amendment?

 

[progressive hunter]

Citizens. Illegals are Unpersons.

no they are still persons and due to due process in the 5th A as stated there,,

It's scary for the Constitution that people like you claim to be supporters and defenders of it.

There's no law in the Declaration of Independence. It was simply an agreement to split from England.
You're an idiot. How does "People" mean something different in the 2nd Amendment?

I refer you to the first seven words of the constitution for that answer,,

 

[dblack]

Citizens. Illegals are Unpersons.

What about unborn illegals?

 

[San Souci]

It's scary for the Constitution that people like you claim to be supporters and defenders of it.

There's no law in the Declaration of Independence. It was simply an agreement to split from England.
You're an idiot. How does "People" mean something different in the 2nd Amendment?

"We The People of the United States". The First SENTENCE of the Constitution. Illegals are NOT included.

 

[San Souci]

What about unborn illegals?

Let them get born elsewhere. After Deportation.

 

[progressive hunter]

"We The People of the United States". The First SENTENCE of the Constitution. Illegals are NOT included.

only when the people are not specified,,
such as the 5th A that says ANY PERSON,,, or the 3rd that says HOME OWNER,,,

or the 6th that says THE ACCUSED,,,

 

[Unkotare]

...Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? I have the original, release 1 with 27 amendments, as ratified in 1789. ...

?????

 

[woodwork201]

Both sides of this argument are unbelievably ignorant. I'm stunned at the moronic responses saying the people means citizens and at the rebuttals saying the 2nd Amendment has a different meaning for "the people". It makes me think I've gone to the zoo and I'm arguing with the baboons in one pen and the orangutans in the adjacent pen over whether the pen across the road is a rhinoceros or an elephant. No matter what you tell either side, they are incapable of understanding more than "banana" and to throw their shit at the zoo visitors.

 

[progressive hunter]

Both sides of this argument are unbelievably ignorant. I'm stunned at the moronic responses saying the people means citizens and at the rebuttals saying the 2nd Amendment has a different meaning for "the people". It makes me think I've gone to the zoo and I'm arguing with the baboons in one pen and the orangutans in the adjacent pen over whether the pen across the road is a rhinoceros or an elephant. No matter what you tell either side, they are incapable of understanding more than "banana" and to throw their shit at the zoo visitors.

sure would help if you explain what I got wrong than just trying to insult me,,

 

[woodwork201]

?????

Your mother used to tell you a lot how special you are, didn't she? It's OK. She meant it. You are special.

He claimed that the 2nd Amendment only applied to citizens, giving the word "people" a different meaning there than everywhere else it was used.

 

[progressive hunter]

Your mother used to tell you a lot how special you are, didn't she? It's OK. She meant it. You are special.

He claimed that the 2nd Amendment only applied to citizens, giving the word "people" a different meaning there than everywhere else it was used.

where else is it used??

 

[Unkotare]

Your mother used to tell you a lot how special you are, didn't she? It's OK. She meant it. You are special.

He claimed that the 2nd Amendment only applied to citizens, giving the word "people" a different meaning there than everywhere else it was used.

Want to take another look at the post to which I was responding?

 

[woodwork201]

no they are still persons and due to due process in the 5th A as stated there,,

I refer you to the first seven words of the constitution for that answer,,

The preamble means nothing. It simply tells the reason for creating the Constitution but it does not establish any law or binding orders. But, even so, where does it say that the people in the preamble are citizens only?