Hello:

I hear right wingers talk about installing judges who will rule on the Constitution as WRITTEN.. But, they're LYING...

Let's look at the 5th Amendment... For the purposes of this question, it says, "...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;"

THAT is how it's WRITTEN (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment)..

But, my right wing friends tell me that the word "person", means CITIZEN. I dunno HOW they do that, but they do, and they DO it with a straight face.. Let's be CLEAR.. A PERSON is ANYBODY. Changing it to CITIZEN, LIMITS who has rights and who doesn't.. Right wingers DON'T want some people to ENJOY the same rights they enjoy... That's WHY they change the meaning of words..

Rant over.

excon

What do you expect from the crowd that WROTE "All men are created EQUAL"... except the Black guys...Chinese guys....Indian guys (Foreign or Domestic)!! Didn't bother mentioning women at all.

I call the dumber people on the right who think they know the Constitution Amendies. They can spout the wording of a few amendments. They forget it when it doesn't apply to their agenda.
I'm not saying all right wingers are dumb. There are dumb people everywhere.
I still don't understand that TPP thingie very well.

Hello again, joy:

I think my right wing friends on THIS website are wicked smart - WRONG - but smart. So, I can't wait for them to tell me how person means citizen.

Of course, if person MEANS person, they'd have to close Gitmo, and they don't wanna do that.

excon

PS> I'm a businessman, and I DON'T understand the TPP thingy, either..

When the constitution, and its amendments, were being drafted was there a difference between a citizen and a person?

When did the distinction of a being a citizen come into place? Could it be that when written those were assumed to be synonymous?

The reason that is being misinterpreted could be that a change in one part of the constitution was not propagated to another part.

Without know more of your history, especially constitutional history, I have no idea.

(I am a conservative Canadian who is socially liberal.)

There has always been tension around what the term "the people" means in the constitution.

From http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

"In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez8 in 1990, the Court said that “the people”refers to those “persons who are part of a national community, or who have “substantial connections” to the United States. The touchstone was not citizenship, but the extent of one’s connection to this country. This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said." Hence "the people" would apply to aliens living in the US, even though they are not citizens, but does not apply to, for example, enemy combatants on foreign soil.

In a case that touches on this, in 1990 a Mexican drug lord who had murdered a DEA agent was arrested in Mexico, then extradited to the US for trial, and ultimately convicted based on evidence obtained without a warrant. That evidence would have been thrown out if the defendant was a US citizen, but "The Supreme...[held] that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a search and seizure when the government acts (1) in a foreign country and (2) with respect to a citizen and resident of a foreign country."

Bottom line is the term "the people" and "persons" does not mean "all people" or "all persons."

I don't know which 'right wingers ' you mean. The 'people are citizens ' argument was used in the terribly flawed and unconstitutional 'Dred Scott ' decision (another argument against judicial supremacy ) . GITMO has been and should be a pow detention center . Should it be closed ? Sure ,once all the prisoners status is finalized. Why hasn't the emperor taken the steps the close the facility ? Because even he realizes that the population left cannot be allowed to return to the battlefield . The bugaboo is determine their fate at GITMO or at a Federal detention center ? What nonsense ! In both cases they will be held without 'constitutional rights ' as you define them . They should be tried as war criminals or released ,or held indefinitely as pow's . I don't care either way . BTW if the founders believed as you do then why did they set up special provisions for native American nations inside the country ? Article 1, Section 8, which states, "[The Congress shall have Power...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means, and it is obvious that it can not be taken literal any longer.

But what would you expect,

Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh
Supreme Court of the United States
21 U.S. 543 (1823)

As early as 1823, the American Indian was still not considered "American". They Supreme Court ruled that countries that "found" America had the real claim to the land, not the Indians that were already living there. They never found it I guess.
The Indians had no right basically to own the land, only be resident on it.