# Do Judges NOW Decide Who Is American? "We The People" DISSENT | PART 4

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKnjtyQQs4
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/unKnjtyQQs4
Generated: 2025-12-24T18:33:10.085+00:00

---
## Quick Overview

The majority decision in the current context implicitly suggests that future panels might extend constitutional rights based on panel composition, potentially leading to the granting of constitutional protections to illegal aliens, which the speaker strongly disagrees with based on historical and textual analysis of the Constitution.

**Key Points:**
- The majority decision relies heavily on an extraneous statement from *Verdugo-Urquidez* (a Fourth Amendment case) to conclude that illegal aliens have Second Amendment rights.
- The speaker argues that the majority's reasoning contradicts the text, history, and tradition that the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to consider.
- The text of the Constitution, founding-era history, and Supreme Court precedent all point to 'the people' meaning citizens, not illegal aliens.
- The Court in *Heller* clarified that 'the people' unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, which excludes illegal aliens.
- The majority's reliance on *Verdugo-Urquidez* is flawed because that case dealt with the Fourth Amendment and explicitly reserved rights to citizens, not aliens.
- The majority's analysis raises more questions than it answers regarding issues like the duration of presence (e.g., five years) and the weight of factors like having children.
- The speaker concurs only in the judgment regarding the conviction's consistency with the Second Amendment, explicitly disagreeing with the majority's reasoning on alien rights.

![Screenshot at 00:00: SCOTUS Bar Attorney Andrew Branca begins analyzing Section C, "Alternative Terms," of a legal document, highlighting the majority's reliance on analogous terms like 'person' and 'citizen' to argue that 'the people' was a term of art.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-00-00.jpg)

**Context:** This video segment, labeled 'PART 4,' is part of a detailed legal analysis by Andrew Branca, a SCOTUS Bar Attorney, concerning a judicial opinion (likely related to the Second Amendment rights of illegal aliens, referencing cases like *Verdugo-Urquidez* and *Heller*). The attorney is dissecting the majority's reasoning, specifically focusing on how the majority interprets 'the people' in the Constitution and how that interpretation might be extended to non-citizens, which he disputes based on textual and historical evidence.

## Detailed Analysis

Andrew Branca critiques the majority's reliance on analogous terms like "person" and "citizen" to interpret "the people" as a term of art, suggesting this supports the idea that "the people" includes non-citizens. He emphasizes that the framers chose their words carefully, using "persons" instead of "the people" when they intended broader application, such as in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Branca cites specific amendments (like Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial) where the term "right of the people" was paired with the word "right," distinguishing it from "the people" phrase used elsewhere. He then shifts to the *Verdugo-Urquidez* case, noting that the majority relies almost exclusively on an extraneous statement from that Fourth Amendment case to conclude illegal aliens have Second Amendment rights. Branca points out that in *Verdugo-Urquidez*, the Mexican drug kingpin asserted the Fourth Amendment required suppression of evidence obtained via drug-enforcement agents during a warrantless search; the Supreme Court found the text of the Fourth Amendment required rejection of his claim because he was a citizen and resident of Mexico with no voluntary attachment to the U.S. The speaker argues that *Verdugo-Urquidez* did not rule on whether illegal aliens were part of "the people" for Second Amendment purposes. Furthermore, Branca asserts that the majority's reasoning runs contrary to text, history, and tradition, noting that the Supreme Court in *Heller* clarified that "the people" unambiguously refers to members of the political community. He worries that the majority's test will ultimately award constitutional rights based on the lack of panel draw luck, potentially leading to future panels extending rights to illegal aliens based on factors like having a flooring contractor job or two citizen children, which he finds absurd. He concludes by stating he concurs only in the judgment affirming Escobar-Ternal's conviction, disagreeing with the majority's reasoning on alien rights.

### Alternative Terms

- The Constitution's reliance on analogous terms like "person" and "citizen" further supports that "the people" was a term of art
- The framers knew their words had meaning and chose them with care, using "persons" instead of "the people" when not referring to American citizens comprising the political community.

### Verdugo-Urquidez Case

- Majority relies almost exclusively on an extraneous statement from *Verdugo-Urquidez* (a Fourth Amendment case) to conclude illegal aliens have Second Amendment rights
- The Supreme Court in that case required rejection of the claim because the alien was a citizen/resident of Mexico with no voluntary attachment to the U.S.

### Supreme Court's Stance on Aliens

- The Supreme Court never intended its textual exegesis in *Verdugo-Urquidez* to be the dispositive test for noncitizens' rights
- If Heller's reasoning were applied, it would conclude illegal aliens are not part of the "political community" and thus not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

### Critique of Majority Reasoning

- Majority's reasoning runs contrary to text, history, and tradition; the majority's three-sentence analysis provides little guidance for district courts applying this test to other illegal aliens asserting constitutional protections.

### The Dissent's View

- The dissent suggests that only noncitizens who live in a certain way become entitled to rights based on the lack of panel draw luck; the speaker worries this test will ultimately award constitutional rights based on luck.

### Heller Clarification

- *Heller* clarified that "the people" unambiguously refers to all members of the political community—not the "national community"—underscoring that illegal aliens cannot be part of "the people" with Second Amendment rights.

![Screenshot at 0:00: Attorney Andrew Branca begins analyzing Section C, "Alternative Terms," of a legal document, highlighting the majority's reliance on analogous terms like 'person' and 'citizen' to argue that 'the people' was a term of art.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-00-00.jpg)
![Screenshot at 0:15: The speaker emphasizes that the framers chose their words carefully, contrasting the use of "persons" versus "the people" in constitutional drafts.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-00-15.jpg)
![Screenshot at 0:44: The attorney highlights references to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to show instances where the drafters used "persons" instead of "the people" when intending broader application.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-00-44.jpg)
![Screenshot at 2:28: The speaker points out the section stating that criminal entry into the U.S. does not entitle illegal aliens to constitutional rights.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-02-28.jpg)
![Screenshot at 4:03: The attorney presents the majority's concession that the Second Amendment's use of 'the people' includes only citizens, which he argues is bound to fail.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/unKnjtyQQs4/00-04-03.jpg)