The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[8]
Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[9]
Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included
06/08/09 - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder should not be extending 6th Amendment rights to people who are in the U.S. illegally. Instead, Congressman Kevin Brady says the focus should be on serious national security lapses and passing a troop funding bill that isn't larded up with spending like Cash for Clunkers when the highway trust fund is broke. (MP3 audio - 4MB download) 4 minutes 25 seconds long. Lots of good points.
Link Removed
When they wrote the 6th amendment I really don't think they were aware of what the future was going to be like and the role terrorists would be playing in it. OR, illegal immigrants (criminals by law) either.* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
"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."
I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.
(SIGH)...Here we go..."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."
I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.
I agree that everyone should have basic rights. However, in this county if you were not born here why do you deserve the rights of the constitution? Don't you think the immigrant should at least EARN the rights? Hell I earned them. If they demonstrate basic knowledge, contribute to society (like pay taxes) then sure welcome to our country. If I went to some of these countries, I would be a political prisoner, or worse. So nothing should be given, but earned.
"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."
I think it says it quite clearly, the Constitution is for the United States and it's people as well as those who follow the legal path of immigration. Illegal immigrants are not protected by it or any of its amendments. That doesn't mean that they should be treated inhumanely. It simply means they have no right to speak out against the government, to obtain free education or medical care (unless it's a true emergency), to collect welfare or anything else at the expense of the people of the United States. Should they want this protection then they should immigrate legally.
As far as I'm concerned if you're not a citizen and you broke the law to get here, then you have no rights. If you're not a citizen you want to be protected by our constitution, then obey the law and go about it the legal way.
OK then, does that mean that we may punish said lawbreakers by shoving a broadsword up their rectum? Boil them in oil? How about we dip 'em in brown gravey and lock 'em in a room with a wolverine that's high on angle dust?As far as I'm concerned if you're not a citizen and you broke the law to get here, then you have no rights. If you're not a citizen you want to be protected by our constitution, then obey the law and go about it the legal way.
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.
(SIGH)...Here we go...
First, where in the Constitution are education, medical care, or welfare mentioned? Apples and oranges.
Second, you can't say they are not protected by the Constitution, and then follow that with "they shouldn't be treated inhumanely". You can't have it both ways. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone anything, God does. The BOR simply re-affirms that we are born with these rights, but not because we are American, because we are human. Weather or not any other country would recognize our God given rights is also irrelavent. We are a great nation because we recognize that all men are created equal, and we treat all men in our custody equally under the law.
Look, I don't like illegals any more than anyone else here does. In fact, I downright despise them (I hate cheaters/liars). But if you are going to strip one human right away, you may as well strip them all.
The beauty of it is that they used the words "their Creator". That implies that these rights are not given by any man, government, or any other earthly entity, and therefore cannot be denied by such. At the same time, the wording leaves it open to each individuals personal belief.Yet these same men that so elequoently wrote these words had no problems with condoning slavery of a certain group of people, the restriction of those rights to a certain group that may not own land or restrict the roght of others based upon the sex that they were born of.
We talk of God given rights but are they and if you are not Christian or possibly an Atheist then which God gave the rights.
I don't see how you can if you wish to remain consistant. Basically what you are saying is that they have an 8th amendment right, but not a 6th or any other.Yes you can say they must be treated humanely without saying they're protected by the Constitution.
This is another contortion of language. The General Welfare clause was originally interpreted by SCOTUS (I don't know the dates) to mean the welfare of ALL the citizens equally, NOT a specific group or class of people. Unfortunately, around (I think) 1935 they reversed that decision, and now look at all the entitlement programs we have bankrupting us today.How about "promote the general Welfare"? This is a catch all for caring for the citizens of the country.
I whole heartedly agree with you here (except for red). We are soft on illegal immigration and we should be rounding them up and deporting them. That doesn't even involve a trial by jury, so the 6A doesn't apply. So, by all means, once we verify that they are in fact here illegally, get 'em out of here. However, if they commited some other crime while they were here, then they should get a trial by jury, with appointed counsel, and sentanced according to our laws. How wrong is that?The only right illegal immigrants have is to be rounded up and sent back to their home country. This country has become soft on immigration and the cost of caring for and educating (all part of promoting the general welfare) them is staggering. Because they are illegal they are paid under the table, if they work, meaning they pay no taxes. Many protest against the government even though they're not supposed to be here. Should they decide to follow the path of legal immigration I would fully support them. If they decide not to then they should be deported. No (SIGH) here.
This is another contortion of language. The General Welfare clause was originally interpreted by SCOTUS (I don't know the dates) to mean the welfare of ALL the citizens equally, NOT a specific group or class of people.
Are you seriously going to grab this one little part of a statement and try to use it to discredit my entire point? You're fishing dude. You are again arguing apples and oranges.I couldn't agree more. All citizens not illegal immigrants.
As for slavery, you should read up on the founders' opinions of slavery. They abhored it, but the Constitution was hard enough to push through as it was. It would never have been accepted with a specific freedom granted to slaves. In fact, the original wording was " Life, Liberty, and Property." They changed "Property" to "Persuit of Happiness" so as not to allow anything in the Constitution to be construed as a right to own slaves. Very wisely, they knew that a time would come when slavery would be abolished, and the process of amending the Constitution was the way it would be done.
As far as I'm concerned if you're not a citizen and you broke the law to get here, then you have no rights. If you're not a citizen you want to be protected by our constitution, then obey the law and go about it the legal way.
Pretty simple concept that some people just can not grasp.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?