Advocate wrote:Dave, please give me the actual words from Verdugo
that state that the word "people" has the same meaning wherever used
in the constitution.
11O S.Ct. 1O56
1O8 L.Ed.2d 222, 58 USLW 4263
(Cite as: 494 U.S. 259, 11O S.Ct. 1O56)
UNITED STATES, Petitioner
v.
Rene Martin VERDUGO URQUIDEZ.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Nov. 7, 1989.
Decided Feb. 28, 199O.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 199O
Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
"the people" seems to have been
a term of art employed in
select parts of the Constitution.
The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established
by "the People of the United States."
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PROTECTS "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS," and
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers
are retained by and reserved to "the people."
See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging...
the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added);
Art. I, ยง 2, cl. 1
("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added).
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests
that
"THE PEOPLE" PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
AND BY THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS, and to whom rights
and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to A CLASS OF PERSONS who are part of a national
community or who have otherwise
developed sufficient connection with this country
to be considered part of that community.
...
The available historical data show, therefore, that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment
was
to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government;
...
To support his all encompassing view of the Fourth Amendment, respondent points to language from the plurality opinion in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957). Reid involved an attempt by Congress to subject the wives of American servicemen to trial by military tribunals without the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court held that it was unconstitutional to apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the trials of the American women for capital crimes. Four Justices "reject [ed] the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights." Id., at 5, 77 S.Ct., at 1224 (emphasis added). The plurality went on to say:
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution.
Its power and authority have no other source.
It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. ..."
[ALL EMPHASIS ADDED BY DAVID for ease of use]
The USSC refers to " a term of art " =
ONE term of art
and to
:
" a class of persons " =
ONE class of persons embracing those
who can speak, freely, worship freely, and keep and bear arms freely
As an opponent of personal liberty, Advocate,
u can take comfort in
:
1 ) the Court 's saying that:
" ... this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive... "
and
2) that the USSC is going to do whatever its members vote to
DO
and that
3) there is only a narrow question before the Court.
That question does not bear upon the powers of the state governments.
As a friend of personal freedom,
I will take comfort in this being one step along the path
to tearing down and annihilating any government 's control or influence
(however slight) over any citizen's possession of defensive guns.
( As u know, my own personal preference is to get rid of [
isolate from the decent people]
intolerably dangerous
men [ judged by criteria of recidivistic violence ]
and just forget about their
TOOLS. )
David
