due process doesn't good behavior make

Bombshell: I hate politics. Seriously! I despise every aspect of the political realm, especially the ad nauseum Party power prevarications claiming to protect constitutional foundations whether Democrat, Republican, Independent. The worst part: In all the hyperbole of constitutional, unconstitutional, and threats to democracy, the average WE THE PERSON, I believe, wouldn’t know or understand “constitutional” if it slapped them. Now, I’m not a brainwashed educated constitutional “expert,” but furthermore, I wouldn’t trust one claiming Party affiliation. Yet, even more despicable than politics, the agenda driven media that creates politics through journalism. If that’s what it can even be called; the entirety thereof a four-letter word: Bull-Shit! Or, based on the never-ending diatribes of verbal diarrhea with the current executive, has the Constitution become so convolutedly obtuse that it’s better to scrap it and start all over again. Executive Orders are changing the landscape daily where one must wonder if a king opposed to a president was elected last November. And Congress, divided solely by Party, either screams like a spoiled child in the desire to cause ill will, or is bullied into submission, the hell with the Constitution.

Although, if one reads the damned thing, there’s more semantics of order, or how the process should work than actual meat and potatoes of work. That’s why, when the Constitution was ratified, included was the ability to amend it. Except, if one can, like the Ten Commandments, see the beauty of the original design, they’d find the need for amendments irrational … unless. Take the “Bill of Rights” (BORs). Yes, the first ten. Read them, think and understand that before embarking on the new path of governance, under the Articles of Confederation, the country did not have a federal head. A Congress yes, inept, and ineffectual, without power, as the power ingredient resided with the States. Thus, when the Constitution was decided upon, those who didn’t want it demanded the BORs to keep the federal from becoming tyrannical, like their prior ruler, the king. Thus, through the continuum of centuries, could things today be a vicious cycle going full circle, or possibly just another feckless inept Congress. Anyway, the BORs confirmed power remained with the people (or States) if one considers the 10^th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Only, that was already enshrined in the Constitution with the first three words: WE THE PEOPLE. The government supposedly limited in power as the power rests with THE PEOPLE.

So, thinking on the premise of the BORs being a further restraint on the federal in its ability to control, take the illegal alien fiasco permeating, including “due process.” All of it predicated on: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process (emphasis added) of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (5^th Amendment/Bill of Rights). Our forebears “due process” the result of forced government duress leading up to the American Revolution. Although, even then, there were those willing to live under duress, remembering: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed (Declaration of Independence). Which begs, or at least it should regarding those today not citizens living freely in the country: If due process wasn’t judicially handled when an illegal entered the country why must it take place to remove them? Should it not be a two-way street? Or does agenda outweigh intent, fully dependent on Party and its designs on agenda? Which also begs: How does one “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (keep reading) qualify for constitutional protection under the Constitution when they illegally entered the country in the first place? Because, if a non-citizen falls under constitutional protection, does it not make them a citizen by default? Especially when some in government are willing to protect them at all costs.

Yet, of one power given Congress: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (Constitution/Article I/Section 8/4^th Clause). The key word being “uniform,” begging: How can those who illegally enter the country be given blanket naturalization (amnesty), yet others must go through a convoluted process requiring years to fulfill? Plus, if the government is limited in power, unable to legislate what it cannot control, then what word is missing in the Constitution, not under the ability to control: Immigration. Only, wasn’t slavery forced immigration of those who had no idea why their birth or home country abducted and sold them into bondage? Which presents a constitutional conundrum: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person (Constitution/Article I/Section 9/1^st Clause).

But believe this: Those who demanded the BORs to protect them from government overreach, demanded the continuance of slavery or they would not have agreed to the Constitution. Thus, the end of slavery didn’t happen until the Civil War. Except, it wasn’t until July 9, 1868, before those who’d been forcibly brought to the country be recognized as citizens: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (emphasis added), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (emphasis added) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14^th Amendment/Section 1). But was the 14^th necessary, especially when one today never postulates “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” when discussing the merits of citizenship illegality or “uniform Rule.” Which should also end the debate over birthright citizenship unless one has been enslaved. The caveat to the entire debacle: Immigration shouldn’t be federally controlled and the slaves then notwithstanding; masses were flooding the country, and the government wasn’t feeding but being fed.

But, in the realm of “due process,” are not judges sworn to uphold law Congress passed, not picking and choosing which laws they determine constitutionally relevant, unless Party dictates dictate? Except, the Constitution: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office (Article III/Section 1). Which begs: Who defines “good Behavior”? So, if a judge violates the law and is arrested, how is the arrest a threat to democracy? Wouldn’t the act of violating the law in a court of law be more the threat? Kind of like a Supreme Court justice unable to define what a woman is.

As such, the nation is today in a quandary of crisis. The desire to dismantle the Constitution in and of itself prevalent in the actions of Party, whether Democrat or Republican. The two-party system of politics destroying the very fibers of the country while Party fealty appears stronger than national understanding. And imagine, before the Constitution was even a glint of desire in the eye, the nation’s Framers framed the outline of the Constitution’s intent: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (Declaration of Independence). Words clear, succinct, easy to understand, especially if one understands the premise of the Constitution’s framing: WE THE PEOPLE. And why amendments are an agenda’s welcome mat, but dangerous to original intent unless one understands history, as intent or agenda can be veiled in deceit; nor deny to any person [and subject to the jurisdiction thereof] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14^th amendment).

So, to close: If an illegal voluntarily entered the country, whether by hook, crook, or believing cartels could be trusted, they were not, by the government, abducted and forcibly brought in. More so misled by Party and the last executive, their altruistic intent a blatant lie. The desire to obtain a faithful voter more the agenda. Thus, in retrospect would the slave amendment apply to their plight? Worse, the intent behind the 14^th was a result of southern Democrats not willing to accept what they and two governments willfully perpetrated on a people innocent. Learn history and the Constitution!