Who has protected rights in this country? How did corporations get protected rights the same as a person? Where in the US constitution or bill of rights does it say any person who is physically in this country reguardless of legal status recieve the full rights provided by the Constitution of The United States.

Bullwnkl.

bull -

is this a rhetorical question, or have you never read the constitution?

fascinating document.....

In general . . . . .

The Consitition (1787) limits government.

Only the Bill of Rights (1789 + further amendments) grants rights.

Most of the early language was drafted before immigration laws and merely refers to "the People".

At the time that meant White Males Over the Age of 21.

It has sincce been expanded to include women persons who are not "white."

If you have a more specific question, I could try to get a more specific answer.

BMT

Bullwinkle, First comment would be that the Constitution isn't the guarantor of any citizen's right.

It enumerates the rights and places limitations on what the government's powers are, but the rights it covers are considered INHERENT for all men( and women) who live in this country.

There was no INS or citizenship requirement then, other than living here..but I do get the gist of your question..:) Jim

According to the preamble evryone. Read it with an open mind and no preconseptions of what it means, but remember the english language has changed some meanings in two hundred years.

So how is this a rhetorical question, there is an answer to how we got into the posistion we are in....perhaps you need to open up a dictionary before you respond using words of which you do not understanding the meaning.

Rhetorical Question, A question asked only for rhetorical effect, no answer being expected.

Bullwnkl.

i know what "rhetorical question" means, bull; no need to get your panties in a wad.

You know what a rhetorical question is then how is my question rhetorical? Perhaps there is a better term. now I will unwad my panties if you can answer my question. They are a bit uncomfortable this way.

Bullwnkl.

i imagine uncomfortable is an understatement! been there myself a few times.

what i meant when i asked the question was whether you expected an answer of if you were asking the question to make a point. either way is fine with me; i was just looking for a clarification.

as for the constitution itself, it truly is a beautiful work of art, in my opinion. even with its so-called flaws and anachronisms it is completely and sometimes surprisingly relevant in today's USA!

Yes. In other words, it recognizes the inherent rights we are born with. According to the founding fathers, government can only recognize or deny rights--it can't grant rights we are already born with......

Casey

Very relevant....sometimes uncomfortably relevant for those who want to reinterpret it without amending it..........

Casey

"The People"



The Courts decided corporations were "People".





Ask the Courts, they're the ones who decided anyone born in the USA is an American citizen........It wasn't so until the Courts said it.......

Literate land-owning white males 25 or older who are native born...and we might disqualify some of those, too. Its all there in my Revised Constitution of The Unites States of AMERICA.

I agree and would expand that somewhat to specify:

"We the people of the United States"

Non-inclusive of every mother's son on the earth. Just plain old.....

"We the people of the United States"

Some provisions of the constitution refer to "citizens" and others refer to "people," so different rights apply differently.

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), the Supreme Court said that usage in various parts of the Constitution



Also remember that the Bill of Rights didn't create rights--it protected rights that were either God-given or already existed under English common law. This is very important re. the Second Amendment, for instance.

How did we get back on this one? John has it right, we don't "qualify" for rights "under the Constitution," we were born with them. The Constitution only guarantees that they will not be taken away. As much as white suburbanites would like, the Constitution can't be rewritten to suit our personal biases, even though the same issues didn't exist when the founding fathers wrote the document.

I don't think I have this argument in me anymore, fellers.

Exactly.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Via dicta of a sidebar discussion from the bench, a bought-and-paid-for U.S. SCOTUS (yeah, they were.... check your REAL history) decided that, without deciding the issue through case law, that they'd see corporations as people. After that, the case was cited, as needed, to do the same.

So, in fact, there is nowhere in the Constitution, or any concrete law that affirms a corporation as a persona ficta (fictious person).



Anywhere it says "person" or "people" instead of "citizen". There's your basis, and your answer.

OK I am done should have worded the question differently but I did get my answer, panties now unbunched.

Bullwnkl.