The U.S. Constitution is a contract

By Matthew G. Andersson

President Trump is getting a lot of unwarranted media criticism for stating that he isn’t a lawyer who can give a formal constitutional law opinion on due process for illegal border crossers.

His administration rightfully seeks to deport them.

But even for the progressive Left, it might be fair to give President Trump some benefit of the doubt: the Constitution’s meaning may not be readily apparent even, or especially, to lawyers, and otherwise hinges on one word.

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments refer to “persons” including in due process. But what does “person” mean? Moreover, what exactly is a due process?

The definition of a person, is in the Constitution’s Preamble which is crucial to constantly reference when the rest of the Constitution is read.

“We the People,” is followed by the prepositional phrase “of the United States,” which technically creates belonging. Those who belong also declare an intent to reinforce their belonging by creating a “more perfect union.” This makes persons those who have entered into a perfected contract with a corporation called the United States.

Those persons then empower representatives who act on their behalf, through elections. Voting in elections is a right reserved constitutionally, for citizens. Persons, therefore, refers to citizens who have given themselves rights as specific persons in their own constitution (preceded by a Declaration that created separateness from others).

Even if you assert that the Amendments are a separate Bill of Rights, those were originally written to actually reinforce allegiance to the Constitution for the anti-federalists, and some must also be referenced to their specific context in slavery emancipation. The 14th Amendment converted what was then deemed legal human property under U.S. contract, into contract freedom. Strictly speaking, illegal immigrants are not in any contract relationship in U.S. law, which can then be converted into a release from obligation.

The other problem is defining due process. That is simply a standard of fairness in legal proceedings, but it again addresses people defined by the Preamble. Moreover, it is limited to government refraining from denying "life, liberty, or property.” Non-legal immigrants, and other non-citizens are not technically “persons” with due process rights, defined at least by our Constitution. They may indeed have natural and other human rights, but not due process via the Constitution in its current form.

Illegal immigrants could of course simply declare their own constitution, but how could it be ratified in the United States? Moreover, U.S. contract law requires parties to be legally qualified including capacity, to enter into a contract. Interestingly, a U.S. employer is legally required to discharge any “undocumented worker” who they may have mistakenly employed. By the Immigration Reform and Control Act, it is illegal to knowingly employ the undocumented. That can seem to contradict the Immigration and Nationality Act. But that Act addresses discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, and those categories do not assume that someone is here illegally.

Deporting a non-citizen otherwise "denies" them nothing, except attempted citizenship by non-legal means. They are free to seek citizenship legally. In fact, deportation actually aids them and others, by upholding fair and legal citizenship paths for all applicants, without unfairly prejudicing hard-earned citizenship that has been rightfully attained legally.

You don’t have to be a practicing attorney or law professor to understand the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, that may be a disadvantage. The Constitution was written by and for “We the people of the United States,” and it is by and for those people, and stated in clear language.

That language only gets obscured by opportunistic lawyers, or by political ideologues suffering from the logical fallacy of wishful thinking. Both of those categories unfortunately make up the majority of the legal profession, and the law school academy.

https://www.americanthinker.co...n_is_a_contract.html

I don't buy the premise that only citizens are "people" or "persons".

To keep it simple, they are stating who, why, and what. The current citizens, to make a better country, are creating a new top level law. They were inclusive of all the citizens, rather than saying something like, "We the ruling class".

Obviously, residents of other countries were not part of this. But their exclusion from the preamble does not exclude them from being people.

The BoR never says "People of the United States", nor "Person of the United States".

However, it is clearly established throughout human history that a person appearing to be actively committing a crime can be restrained prior to any due process. I can point my gun at a suspected home invader and chase him out.

The rub comes when a person claims he isn't actually committing a crime. The fire department sees smoke coming from my home and breaks in the front door. Seeing my gun, they believably claim they are not criminal invaders. My right to shoot them ends.

Does due process exist for a person illegally in the country accused of a different crime? e.g. Accused of armed robbery, can that person be jailed or executed without a trial, or is he entitled to a fair trial?

If his right to due process exists for armed robbery, why not for illegal presence?

If he is caught illegally here, he can be restrained all the way back out of the country without trial. Or, he could be deprived of life or liberty after some due process. (In the case of enemy acts of war, due process could be military tribunal after capture).

To complicate it, what if the government wishes to summarily execute the armed robbery suspect on the grounds he is an illegal alien and thus he has no right to due process? Does the government have the burden of proof to show he is, in fact, an illegal alien? If so, it means the person does have a right to due process. If not, it means the police as part of the Administration, not the Judiciary, have sole authority to apprehend and apply punishment. Stasi, KGB?

The rub in this scenario is akin to the firefighter in my home, when he claims he is not in fact illegally present. The person who contests the government's assertion he is illegally in the country now has the right to a process which is fair and impartial.

What precisely that process should be is a separate topic.

Deportation is overdue process

quote:

If his right to due process exists for armed robbery, why not for illegal presence?

Because armed robbery is a crime punished by a prison sentence. Deportation is not a prison sentence.

As stated:

quote:

Deporting a non-citizen otherwise "denies" them nothing, except attempted citizenship by non-legal means. They are free to seek citizenship legally. In fact, deportation actually aids them and others, by upholding fair and legal citizenship paths for all applicants, without unfairly prejudicing hard-earned citizenship that has been rightfully attained legally.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

If his right to due process exists for armed robbery, why not for illegal presence?

Because armed robbery is a crime punished by a prison sentence. Deportation is not a prison sentence.

...

Then if we use "trespass" instead of "robbery", people are "removed" from a place they are not welcome, when trespassing.

Is not a "non-citizen" trespassing?

One that is removed from a place they are trespassing, is not typically "run through the court system. They are removed for the "place".

If they are habitual, then jail, court et al.

This is how I see those here illegally. They are trespassing, remove them. If they continue, due process the crap out of them and remove them some more.

I have no issue with treating them as the people they are, but they need to be treated as the people they are.

This is our home, We the People... who are on the mortgage*, get to decide who we permit in.

*(with skin in the game)

All those fancy signatures on the Declaration, are those to whom were given each of our Powers of Attorney, in perpetuity.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

If his right to due process exists for armed robbery, why not for illegal presence?

Because armed robbery is a crime punished by a prison sentence. Deportation is not a prison sentence.

As stated:

quote:

Deporting a non-citizen otherwise "denies" them nothing, except attempted citizenship by non-legal means. They are free to seek citizenship legally. In fact, deportation actually aids them and others, by upholding fair and legal citizenship paths for all applicants, without unfairly prejudicing hard-earned citizenship that has been rightfully attained legally.

I'm not sure that's true of the ones sent to prison in El Salvador. OTOH: If they had outstanding warrants there and were arrested and charged upon arrival, that would be a different story.

I agree that the constitution is not limited to citizens.

I think it depends on what the definition of due process is for deportation.

You're allegedly a non-citizen illegal within the borders of the United States. It's a border control issue. People who enter the U.S. go through the due process of border control. If you're a citi9zen, you get in. If you're a non-citizen, then the border agent determines if you have a valid visa or permission to enter the U.S. If they find illegal drugs on your person, they can still turn you away or arrest you first despite any legal authorization you have for entering.

If you're apprehended inside the United States, you can either show you're a citizen or have authorization to be here. If you have neither, then the due process of confirming you're not a citizen or have a valid authorization should be sufficient whether to deport you. If you claim you had authorization for asylum under previous administration, then there should be a record of it. If, however, you've committed crimes here while being an asylee, that should make your application null and void and qualify you for deportation.

Isn't it ironic that these same Dems will forgo "Due Process" with so-called Red Flag Laws on regular actual citizens but illegal criminals they go out of their way to please.

Not when it supports their unspoken hidden agendas. But try accusing the left of that and see what reaction you get.

I 100% agree with Stephen Miller's assessment of "due process", he is spot on.



https://x.com/elonmusk/status/...istration-day-106%2F

Sending the El Salvadoran gang members back to El Salvador - assuming there’s a warrant etc for them, seems fine.

Sending Venezuelans to El Salvador, to be detained…. Maybe. Bit squishier-again, unless they have warrants in El Salvador.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
I 100% agree with Stephen Miller's assessment of "due process", he is spot on.

Is not a person alleged to be here illegally assumed innocent under the law until he is proven via due process to be illegal? If not, how is it different than when a person is alleged to have violated some other law?

Iow, do the police have the authority to declare a person guilty of a crime and then apply a penalty, without the person having any recourse to dispute his guilt? If so for illegal presence in the country, what other crimes does that apply to?

Well using the above logic, any crime that doesn’t have a criminal penalty. Deportation from a country where you have no legal right to be here isn’t a criminal penalty. If that same illegal robs a bank then yes, due process applies because a criminal penalty will be imposed. Theoretically if that bank robber was deported without facing the penalty of his criminal charges then once again it would be a solid argument for no “due process”.

It is a very reasonable argument. To the Constitution argument it is even simpler. The “people” are its citizens. The 2A says people as well yet no one pretends that a foreigner can come in and buy guns. By putting it in the preamble they were giving us the “index” to what they were referring to.

Anyone can sea lawyer this to either argument but put me firmly in the camp of the people mean citizens or the 1770’s version of that definition, birthright citizenship is nonsense, and getting deported has no more “due process” than you are or aren’t here illegally. Sure, give me a couple beers and I could make an argument the other way but it would be a weaker argument. Just like anti gun people can argue the 2A is for Guard and Reserve. Lawyers have argued both sides of every issue since Cain and Abel. This is nothing new. Hopefully the USSC nails down the interpretations.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Sending the El Salvadoran gang members back to El Salvador - assuming there’s a warrant etc for them, seems fine.

Sending Venezuelans to El Salvador, to be detained…. Maybe. Bit squishier-again, unless they have warrants in El Salvador.

But they're sent to El Salvador because Venezuela won't take them back and El Salvador will take them for us. If the home country refuses repatriation, does that mean we're stuck with them? I don't think the Founders intended that. I don't think it's reasonable to accept foreign invaders just because their home country doesn't want them back. What's to stop any country from just emptying their prisons and mental institutions and then send them all to us?

I think too many people obsess about the 'process' in the phrase, rather than the 'due'.

What 'process' you are 'due' depends on the situation.

Thought exercise here. Say you went to a foreign country, and someone stole your passport on the plane.

You wouldn't get through passport control in the airport without the right papers. That foreign country would just turn you around and send you home. That is the 'process' that is 'due' in that situation.

Same thing when rolling through our borders without docs.

Like many logical things...it'll probably take the Supremes to make the call here, since a good chunk of the left (and their appointees) are being epically dense.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Sending the El Salvadoran gang members back to El Salvador - assuming there’s a warrant etc for them, seems fine.

Sending Venezuelans to El Salvador, to be detained…. Maybe. Bit squishier-again, unless they have warrants in El Salvador.

Personally, I don't care where they send them, just GTFO of the USA!

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Well using the above logic, any crime that doesn’t have a criminal penalty. Deportation from a country where you have no legal right to be here isn’t a criminal penalty. If that same illegal robs a bank then yes, due process applies because a criminal penalty will be imposed. Theoretically if that bank robber was deported without facing the penalty of his criminal charges then once again it would be a solid argument for no “due process”.

What if a person was wrongly picked up and deported? The police believed he was an illegal, so they deported him. But, in fact, it was YOU, but you had no impartial process within which to make your claim of innocence.

Have you not been deprived of liberty and property by being deported? Without your 5th Amendment due process.

What you and, apparently, everyone else here feels is that it is fine to deport a person based simply on the declaration of a police organization (ICE, FBI, my local Sheriff), without the availability of an impartial process for the person to contest deportation.

But you'd be totally against such a notion when it involves literally any other crime whereby the penalty is something other than deportation.

I've said my piece. I'm out.

quote:

Is not a person alleged to be here illegally assumed innocent under the law until he is proven via due process to be illegal?

No, once it is established that the person is a non-citizen, the burden is on them to prove they are here legally.

Well bye I guess.

Anyone who thinks they are a citizen should probably have some idea of how to prove it. Birth certificate would probably be the easiest for most people. Without really giving much of a shit I haven’t researched other means.

Is there a history of citizens being deported? Is this just a scare tactic being bandied about like concentration camps for gays or death boards for old people?

If you get picked up by ICE and deported am I to believe that these people aren’t given an opportunity to show evidence of their citizenship? Are we to believe they are guilty of being brown and just trundled off? I don’t know the process but I believe there is a process.