How “We the People” Is Being Diluted in Federal Court

Quick Overview

The analysis concludes that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment, as applied by the courts, is being disingenuously interpreted to exclude unlawfully present individuals, such as illegal aliens, from constitutional protections like the right to keep and bear arms, primarily by relying on ambiguous historical sources that suggest exclusion, which the speaker argues is not supported by the relevant case law where the Supreme Court previously recognized that unlawfully present individuals are entitled to constitutional protections.

Key Points: The speaker argues that federal courts are diluting the meaning of "we the people" in the Second Amendment to exclude unlawfully present individuals from gun rights. The case involves an illegal alien convicted under a federal statute prohibiting gun possession by illegal aliens, who claims the Second Amendment right applies to him. The court's analysis hinges on whether the phrase "right of the people" in the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens, referencing its use in the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court has confirmed that "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments has the same meaning throughout the Bill of Rights, including the understanding that unlawfully present individuals receive protections like freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment). The Seventh Circuit previously ruled that unlawfully present individuals can be part of "the people" for Second Amendment purposes, but the Eleventh Circuit explained that it cannot rule out the possibility that some illegal aliens might have otherwise developed sufficient connection to be considered part of "the people." The government's historical sources suggesting exclusion of unlawfully present individuals from the right to bear arms are deemed ambiguous or not applicable to the current stage of analysis. The speaker suggests that limiting the Second Amendment to only citizens is an unsupported conclusion, as historical analysis shows that protections extend beyond citizens in other contexts.