4 ms·

In regards to protest though, the activity they are interested in, that is a right of 'the people to peaceably assemble' per 1A. Non-immigrants are not 'the pe

by ty6853 1y ago

In regards to protest though, the activity they are interested in, that is a right of 'the people to peaceably assemble' per 1A. Non-immigrants are not 'the people' per current interpretation of the constitution. If they were people, they would have all the rights ascribed to 'the people' including right to bear arms. Non immigrants do not have a right to bear arms, thus it cannot logically follow they are [the] people.

bigyabai 1y ago
[flagged]
- ty6853 1y ago
  You can read here, but in short 'the people' are those who are members of the 'political community' according to certain criteria. Generally this doesn't include non-immigrants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214190/gov.uscourts.ca5.214190.103.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> immigrants are not 'the people' per current interpretation of the constitution. Not true. The meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th Amendments, it has historically been interpreted to include non-citizens (even illegal ones!) while in the 2nd Amendment it has been interpreted much more narrowly. And regardless, this in no way authorizes the government to compel Harvard to do anything. Even in the most fascist interpretation you can dream up, it would mean the government itself is allowed to curtail their assembly. Harvard has no obligations (under the 1st Amendment!) to do any such thing.
- ty6853 1y ago
  I'm not sure anyone can take seriously the proposition that 'the people' is Jekyll and Hyded amendment by amendment, especially when the constitution is completely devoid of any suggestion it is interpreted as such.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    That's a huge bummer because that is very clearly and unequivocally what the case law shows.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      Constitution is the supreme law. The constitution does not make an amendment by amendment distinction what 'the people' is.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Ah... I see we're dealing with a much more fundamental misunderstanding than I thought! Are you American/did you attend American middle or high schools?
        ty6853 1y ago
        >he meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th Amendments, I went to the one where they didn't teach 'the people' was written anywhere in the 5th amendment. I'm definitely not being interested in being lectured by those who think imaginary words exist in the 5th amendment.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Whoops! That was meant to be a 4. But yeah, like a 7th grade civics class (in the US) would’ve educated you on the role of case law as it relates to interpreting the Constitution. Presumably your home country didn’t spend much time on it though, which makes sense!
        ty6853 1y ago
        But the 4th amendment doesn't appear to provide 'the people' protection to non-immigrants. A US citizen cannot be compelled to produce their citizenship with out a warrant, whereas a non-immigrant can be compelled to produce their papers on the spot. Also the recent Bruen ruling was taken by at least one case law in Illinois [] that applied 'the people' the same as the other amendments (as it was in early American history), when they overturned (from memory) a prohibited possessor conviction. They just came to a different conclusion what 'the people' is and held an illegal immigrant (as applied) was part of 'the people'. And finally, despite the fact the case law isn't as 'unequivocal' as you seem to think, you still have to get around the fact that the very writers of those amendments believed the rights in the bill of rights were god given natural rights, thus case law can at best reflect them and at worst incorrectly apply them but not modify the natural right. In fact this was part of the reason why the 2nd amendment was written, was because the founders needed a check when the case law, legislator, and executive all applied the constitution in contradiction to the acknowledged natural rights. [] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_20-cr-00613/context https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_20-cr-00...

by ty6853 1y ago

bigyabai 1y ago

[flagged]

ty6853 1y ago
You can read here, but in short 'the people' are those who are members of the 'political community' according to certain criteria. Generally this doesn't include non-immigrants. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214190/gov.uscourts.ca5.214190.103.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214...

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

> immigrants are not 'the people' per current interpretation of the constitution. Not true. The meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th Amendments, it has historically been interpreted to include non-citizens (even illegal ones!) while in the 2nd Amendment it has been interpreted much more narrowly. And regardless, this in no way authorizes the government to compel Harvard to do anything. Even in the most fascist interpretation you can dream up, it would mean the government itself is allowed to curtail their assembly. Harvard has no obligations (under the 1st Amendment!) to do any such thing.

ty6853 1y ago
I'm not sure anyone can take seriously the proposition that 'the people' is Jekyll and Hyded amendment by amendment, especially when the constitution is completely devoid of any suggestion it is interpreted as such.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  That's a huge bummer because that is very clearly and unequivocally what the case law shows.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Constitution is the supreme law. The constitution does not make an amendment by amendment distinction what 'the people' is.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Ah... I see we're dealing with a much more fundamental misunderstanding than I thought! Are you American/did you attend American middle or high schools?
      - ty6853 1y ago
        >he meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th Amendments, I went to the one where they didn't teach 'the people' was written anywhere in the 5th amendment. I'm definitely not being interested in being lectured by those who think imaginary words exist in the 5th amendment.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Whoops! That was meant to be a 4. But yeah, like a 7th grade civics class (in the US) would’ve educated you on the role of case law as it relates to interpreting the Constitution. Presumably your home country didn’t spend much time on it though, which makes sense!
        ty6853 1y ago
        But the 4th amendment doesn't appear to provide 'the people' protection to non-immigrants. A US citizen cannot be compelled to produce their citizenship with out a warrant, whereas a non-immigrant can be compelled to produce their papers on the spot. Also the recent Bruen ruling was taken by at least one case law in Illinois [] that applied 'the people' the same as the other amendments (as it was in early American history), when they overturned (from memory) a prohibited possessor conviction. They just came to a different conclusion what 'the people' is and held an illegal immigrant (as applied) was part of 'the people'. And finally, despite the fact the case law isn't as 'unequivocal' as you seem to think, you still have to get around the fact that the very writers of those amendments believed the rights in the bill of rights were god given natural rights, thus case law can at best reflect them and at worst incorrectly apply them but not modify the natural right. In fact this was part of the reason why the 2nd amendment was written, was because the founders needed a check when the case law, legislator, and executive all applied the constitution in contradiction to the acknowledged natural rights. [] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_20-cr-00613/context https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_20-cr-00...