Friday, March 6, 2009

A Quandary

The Constitution of the United States uses two words which are in dire need of concrete definitions: Person and Citizen.

There has been a strong move to push constitutional rights onto non-citizens of the United States, whether they be illegal aliens or unlawful combatants captured by the United States during a time of war. The basic argument for providing constitutional rights to these person is the Constitution's use of the word "person" rather than "citizen" when conferring its protection of individual and state rights.

Was this a purposeful intention of the founding fathers, to extend the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world" as "persons"? Were the founding fathers so concerned with the treatment of non-citizens by the federal government, that they purposefully extend the Constitution's protection?

It seems to me that if you are going to provide all persons the protection of your Constitution, there would be no need for immigration and naturalization. I was born a citizen of the United States and I am protected by the Constitution. Somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants to the United States and they were naturalized to become citizens of the United States because they wanted the protection offered by the Constitution and they wanted their children and their children's children to grow up in a society where citizens are allowed to live their lives free from the intervention of the federal government. Why would they desire naturalization if there is no difference between an alien within the borders of the United States and a natural born citizen of the United States?

I believe it is common sense to believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect Citizens and States from an over-reaching federal government. It appears beyond reason that the Constitution should be considered so "over-inclusive". By extending the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world", we are destroying the sovereignty of the United States and diminishing my status as a citizen.

But then we have the problem of the 14th Amendment which has been the crux of millions of law suits. Even if the Founding Fathers did not intend to extend the protection of the Constitution of the United States to protect everyone, did the 1968 Congress intend to do so? Is there a legitimate need to review the 14th Amendment and redefine the protections of the Constitution, yet again?

I'm beginning to think we have to, in order to protect the sovereignty of our nation.

What are your thoughts?

No comments: