This post is an interesting read and must be understood by all Americans!

 

The U.S. Constitution is a contract

By Matthew G. Andersson www.americanthinker.com

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.