Who has constitutional rights?

[LeroyDumonde]

Yet those same people wrote the constitution and the first amendment in the bill of rights.

Please explain.

The Bill of Rights enumerates some rights. It doesn't grant any rights. The rights would exist absent the Constitution. At least that's what the FF believed.

 

[San Souci]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

Not under Biden and the Dems. Right now they have MORE rights than Citizens.

 

[Rogue AI]

what are "enhanced constitutional rights"? The Constitution protects everyone that is under it's jurisdiction...no matter their immigration status

Illegal aliens are granted Constitutional protections, like Miranda and due process. They are not granted the right to vote or to keep and bear arms. Such protections are a privilege, they are not guaranteed.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Do Not Get Down Range "

* Moral Relativism Of Nature Mocking Stupidity Of Non Alienable Claims *

If that were true, they wouldn't be inalienable rights. They would be given by government. Government doesn't GRANT rights. Your emotions on this topic prevent you thinking clearly

There is no such thing as an inalienable rite and the premise is pretentious stupidity - see Zone1 - Anthropocentic Psychosis : How Compelling And To Which Ends Are Its Impacts Within Hue Mammon Society ? .

A law exists because there is an entity capable of issuing a retort for violations of its pretexts .

Sojourners whom are not a subject by title of visa , either as not a us citizen or not as a legal migrant , are not subjects of the us and are not subjects to us jurisdiction , as a subject is a contractual obligation a government to issue a retort for violations of civil liberties , whether its citizens are within or outside of its domain of ability to enforce its laws .

Children of sojourners whom are not subjects of us jurisdiction are to be given jus sangunis citizenship in the country of origin in which the parents are formal subjects .

A retort for violation of civil liberties against non subjects occurs formally through diplomacy , even though the current informal us policy is to issue a retort for violation of basic protections of self ownership and self determination .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Vacuous Rites Far More Easily Exclaimed From Podium Than Grounded In Reality "

* Inspirational Allusions Without Complete Deduction *

Declaration of Independence: "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Founding Fathers seem to be operating under the assumption that rights are God-given, not Constitution-given.

Anything that can be alienated is not inalienable , it is alienable .

All men are created equal surreptitiously implies that woman are not equal with men , while per son ( person ) means male and countable by census , such that technically by us 14th amendment women are not formal citizens and entitled to vote , else see us 19th amendment .

The correct term is rites , as in rites of behavior that imply rituals , as there is not a difference between a religion and a creed , and implying or using the term right as synonymous with correct , or true , or valid , or yes , or a 90 degree angle , or plumb , or orthogonal , or a norm is idiotic slang and one of the greatest moronic assertions of diction - a blathering faux pas of hue mammon institutional buffoonery .

Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction

* Applying The Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of A Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction * * Opening Post Subjective Objective Sew Gnomon * The term right is a faux pas of diction , as to equivocate the term right with a mathematical norm leads to a contradiction ...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[DGS49]

The Constitution itself tells you who has "rights." Sometimes it refers to citizens, sometimes persons residing within our borders.

The Supreme Court many years ago acted to prevent States from withholding State-provided benefits (the "Safety Net") to people, just because they are not citizens, or even if they are in the country illegally.

This, along with birthright citizenship - based on an intentional mis-reading of the 14th Amendment - are a couple of the worst impositions by the Court on this country, for which we must pay in perpetuity, it appears.

 

[progressive hunter]

They use the words people and persons of the USA

I havent seen one reference to persons of the USA,, can you show where it says that??

 

[boevans]

Anyone living in America who is subject to the law is guaranteed constitutional rights, including illegal immigrants.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Misconstruing An Allusion Of Subject To "

* Technical Element Of Contractual Agreement Versus Conjectural Hubris *

Anyone living in America who is subject to the law is guaranteed constitutional rights, including illegal immigrants.

Illegal migrants are not subjects of / to the united states ; however , illegal migrants are subjects of / to their country of origin .

 

[dblack]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

"Enhanced constitutional rights"????

 

[LuckyDuck]

Illegals?
Nope
They have legal rights but not the benefit of enhanced constitutional rights
That is reserved for citizens.

Our citizens Constitutional rights are being systematically chipped away also. By the time the left is done, no one will have legal rights.

 

[struth]

" Misconstruing An Allusion Of Subject To "

* Technical Element Of Contractual Agreement Versus Conjectural Hubris *

Illegal migrants are not subjects of / to the united states ; however , illegal migrants are subjects of / to their country of origin .

What? Nobody is a subject of the United States…we aren’t a monarchy.

And we are talking about a Constitution not a contractual agreement

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Bastardization Of The Term Subject By Those Who Revile The Citizen And Us Autonomy "

* Citizens Are Subjects By Contract *

What? Nobody is a subject of the United States…we aren’t a monarchy.
And we are talking about a Constitution not a contractual agreement

A monarchy or emperor has nothing to do with a general understanding of a citizen as a subject of / to a government , rather a subject is a formal status of interest of a government by contractual agreement , whether as a citizen or by a government accepting an onus of responsibility by diplomatic agreement .

Us citizens are subjects of the united states , which makes them subjects to the united states , which makes them subject to the jurisdiction thereof ; and similarly , illegal migrants are not .

 

[struth]

" Bastardization Of The Term Subject By Those Who Revile The Citizen And Us Autonomy "

* Citizens Are Subjects By Contract *

A monarchy or emperor has nothing to do with a general understanding of a citizen as a subject of / to a government , rather a subject is a formal status of interest of a government by contractual agreement , whether as a citizen or by a government accepting an onus of responsibility by diplomatic agreement .

Us citizens are subjects of the united states , which makes them subjects to the united states , which makes them subject to the jurisdiction thereof ; and similarly , illegal migrants are not .

No, citizens of the United States aren’t subjects

There is no contract between the citizens and the Govt, the govt only exist in the United States because of the people. The power of the govt comes from the people. That’s the opposite of a subject who serves the govt

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Us Civics Is Shit "

* Succinct Political Science Terminology *

"Enhanced constitutional rights"????

An intent was likely a reference to positive liberties , which are endowments , such a social subsistence and citizenship for offspring .

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

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subjects Of Contractual And Obligatory Interest "

* Flip Side Of Whom is Beholden To What *

No, citizens of the United States aren’t subjects
There is no contract between the citizens and the Govt, the govt only exist in the United States because of the people. The power of the govt comes from the people. That’s the opposite of a subject who serves the govt

A citizen is a subject of its government ; and us citizens are subjects of us government and therefore subjects to interests of us government , and as subjects of / to us government , us government is beholden to its subjects whom are its citizens .

The term subject does not necessarily allude to being beholden to whims of government as a matter of servitude , rather than a government beholden to servitude of its citizen subjects .

 

[struth]

" Subjects Of Contractual And Obligatory Interest "

* Flip Side Of Whom is Beholden To What *

A citizen is a subject of its government ; and us citizens are subjects of us government and therefore subjects to the government , and as subjects the us government is beholden to its subjects , which are its citizens .

The term subject deos not necessarily allude to being beholden to whims of government as a matter of servitude , rather than a government beholden to servitude of its citizen subjects . .

Hahah no we aren’t. It’s not a contract. The people created the govt with the Constitution. There are no contractual obligations

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Subjects Of Legal And Contractual Interest "

* Us Constitution Is A Contract *

Hahah no we aren’t. It’s not a contract. The people created the govt with the Constitution. There are no contractual obligations

The us citizen is a subject of the us government , and us government has an obligation through the contractual agreement of its constitution to protect the civil liberties its subjects , as opposed to a totalitarian government that is able to wield indiscriminate ability to dictate the behavior of its subjects .

 

[struth]

" Subjects Of Legal And Contractual Interest "

* Us Constitution Is A Contract *

The us citizen is a subject of the us government , and us government has an obligation through the contractual agreement of its constitution to protect the civil liberties its subjects , as opposed to a totalitarian government that is able to wield indiscriminate ability to dictate the behavior of its subjects .

Haha no, we aren’t subjects and the US govt has no obligation as there is no contract

Govt has no obligation to do anything

Where is this magical contract?

 

[dblack]

" Us Civics Is Shit "

* Succinct Political Science Terminology *

An intent was likely a reference to positive liberties , which are endowments , such a social subsistence and citizenship for offspring .

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

"Positive liberties" aren't liberties. Nor rights. Nor are they promised by the constitution.