reply to post by jdub297
Where's the Americans' 'rights watchdog?" Shouldn't the ACLU be defending this American family's rights? The federal lawsuit seeks $32 million
in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife,
Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while
carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog. Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United
States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone
who tried to escape.
There are human rights and legal rights. Anyone inside the boundaries of the United States, legally or illegally, is under its jurisdiction. AND ITS
PROTECTIONS. And are entitled to certain rights spelled out in the US Constitution. No doubt about that. Those are within the inherent powers of any
The problem arises because most of the general public is unfamiliar with the US Constitution. The writers used the words, “people” and
“persons” and “citizens.” I take it for granted the writers knew the difference and carefully chose their words to convey precise meanings.
Although “people” appears several times in the US Constitution, it is among the very first words written: Preamble: “We the people of the United
States, in order to form a more perfect union . . “ This is a very inclusive term, “people” and no doubt includes all the humans residing in the
Next comes the word “person.” Again, it appears often in the US Con and its Amendments. The first instance is here: Article II, Section 2. Clause
2. “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”
Note that also, the third word, “citizen” also appears here. There is a very important distinction between “PERSON” and “CITIZEN.” “No
person” means exactly what everyone who speaks English knows. I shall not try to add to that. The next word “citizen” is also well known to MOST
of the people living inside the boundaries. I think I can assume that, too.
So what have we learned up to this point? That “people” and “person” are probably synonyms for humans or human beings. In every instance of
the usage of either word, there is no distinction between the two words. I tend to regard “person” to be the more direct or explicit term than
“people” which I regard as broader but that is me. It is sure though, that all persons are people and that all people are persons. That cannot be
And now we get to the meat of this posting. Article IV Section 2. “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice . . “
Note here in Article 4, the two terms, “citizens” and “person” are used in close proximity and on the same general subject. Rights. The first
sentence grants a citizen of New Jersey, for example, the same rights as a citizen of Maryland should he find himself in Maryland. He does not take
his New Jersey rights to Maryland but neither can Maryland discriminate against him because he is from New Jersey.
The second sentence is the FIRST sentence to apply to the illegal immigrants who are the subject of this thread. And what does it say? “A person”
which means MORE than a citizen. Most of the humans on the planet are NOT citizens of the US, but all the inhabitants of the planet ARE persons.
Therefore, what followed above applies to everyone who is UNDER the jurisdiction of the United States.
Let me move on. To keep it straight just WHO is in charge here, let me reprint Article VI of the US Constitution. Article VI Clause 2. “This
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The above is referred to as the SUPREMACY CLAUSE. That part which says “ . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . ” I remind that “land”
as used there means all the land over which the United States exerts control. (AG Gonzales advised Pres. Bush that was not the meaning [of land] and
that Guantanamo Bay was not covered by the term "land" although no one had ever disputed that the Canal Zone in Panama was not covered by the term
“land”. Or Guam, Wake or Midway Islands and etc).
But I think people of good will can read that and understand what the Founders meant when they chose those words. Note: When the US Con was written -
1787 - the Continental Congress had already obtained jurisdiction over the Northwest Territory (1785) which went on to become the states of Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and most of Minnesota. So the Founder's choice of “LAND” had a good reason to be used there. Land to
include states and other territories under the control of the United States.
More Con Law further spelling out the supremacy of the Federal government and the duties on all state officials. Article IV, Clause 3. “The Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United
States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . “ This provision together with the first
provision or Supremacy Clause, spells a NO NO to the claims of state’s rights.
Note: Under certain conditions allowed under the Federal power to regulate in interstate commerce, the Supreme Court permits states to regulate unless
the Federal law PREEMPTS the states in which case, Federal law is supreme. See Article I, Section 8. Clause 3. "To regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes . . " as a power granted to the Congress.
Finally, two more very pertinent examples. The famous Fifth Amendment. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . “ This protection applies not just to CITIZENS but also and equally to PERSONS who
find themselves under United States jurisdiction and its protection.
Amendment V continues: “ . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . “
Every person under American control and jurisdiction has these SAME protections.
Icing on the cake: Amendment VI. “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 wherein the crime shall have been committed . . 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.”
This amendment is not limited to CITIZENS but applies to ACCUSED whether citizen or person. Just to be an ACCUSED and you have these rights guaranteed
to you. Including a FREE lawyer to represent your interests. Like the ACLU. Actually, more like the Public Defenders. The ACLU takes cases where they
see a constitutional issue involving civil liberties.
Another provision that applies to everyone. Amendment VIII. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed . . ”
And last, the best Amendment of all which explains the two categories succinctly, persons and citizens. Read it and weep, the Fourteenth
, Section 1. “All persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.”
The most important single section of the US Con and its 27 amendments, IMO. Re-read those restrictions placed SQUARELY on the STATES!
Now you know why those lawyers are suing anyone who violates the rights of any PERSON inside the boundaries of the United States. REGARDLESS how they
[edit on 2/11/2009 by donwhite]