Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests we are discussing the U.S. Bill of Rights and frankly, how it is kind of being put to the test under this current administration. Now I think it's important to point out as a preface to this video, I have expressed my deep concerns about the way things in U.S. Immigration were going especially during the Biden Administration where frankly the border was just wide open. I mean there was footage of just people just charging through and things; it was pretty eerie, I mean very concerning, deeply disconcerting in many ways. But the point is yeah that shouldn't have happened. I'm glad to see good immigration enforcement along the borders now, but now we've got all these folks that really shouldn't be in the United States, in there and how do you deal with them. Unfortunately, there seems to be a very cavalier attitude from some quarters about the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights is not, as I'll get to here in a moment, is not necessarily just our right okay, there are inherent rights that are also noted in those documents but those documents don't confer rights; rights and liberties are inherent to the individual and in an American context especially how we look at it legally, yeah, just because it doesn't say you have the right to do this, you may still have the right to do it. That gets into the 9th Amendment which I'll go into here in moment. 

That said, the point I want to make in prefacing this video is on the one hand, I was deeply concerned about illegal Immigration and I'm very glad to see this Administration takes a very different stance on that than the past one, especially in a practical sense. However, there seems to be a very cavalier attitude about notions of the Fourth Amendment, the fifth Amendment; the right of people not to have to walk around and be asked to show papers. Again, and there are better ways to do this too. It's my understanding that there are techniques that would actually round up more illegal immigrants than - actually the proper term is illegal alien - more illegal aliens than what they are currently doing but here's where we're at. 

That said, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from NBC News, that's nbcnews.com, the article is titled: Bill of Rights put to the test over Trump's Immigration Crackdown in Minnesota. Quoting directly: "In and out of Court, more than half of the Amendments enshrined in the Bill of Rights are being fought over as a direct result of President Donald Trump's Immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota. In his second term, Trump and his Administration have been aggressive in stretching the boundaries of political conventions, resulting in a number of court challenges. Trump's push to eliminate birthright citizenship, freeze federal funds and bypass Congress through Executive Orders have tested the separation of powers." Yeah, just kind of offhand I saw this recent announcement that the Supreme Court overturned what he could do with regard to tariffs and then he just kind of turned around and seemingly, I don't think he's ignoring it, but it's kind of one of these - going back into the first administration of Trump -  people pointed out that he seem to have a sort of affinity for Andrew Jackson and he sort of styled himself in sort of that vein. As an American, especially someone descended from somebody who actually fought in the Battle of New Orleans, I have got a lot of time for Andrew Jackson. Frankly, in my opinion he probably saved America from possibly being bisected, if not later on maybe even destroyed as a result of foreigners having control of the mouth of the Mississippi. That said, I have also got Cherokee in me, and he wasn't so good to those people, and he had the attitude when the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional and illegal for the President to mass migrate if you will, the Cherokee Nation over to Oklahoma. His response was, "Well John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it". And Trump's attitude, I'm not trying to read the man out of sorts, but it does it seem like that he has a bit of that attitude regarding - at least in the aftermath of this tariffs thing - I do get that he feels that what he's doing is necessary, but we do have separation of powers for a reason and we are a Constitutional Republic. We are not an Empire; we don't have an Emperor; he doesn't just get to dictate things. And the whole tariff thing, the notion you can just point to a country and say, "you owe this much", it's a little bit creepy from a Constitutional standpoint and the Supremes pointed out that there were real problems with that. Now again, that's not what I'm trying to get into in this video, but a cavalier attitude toward our own liberties and things is not something you want, especially the President to have, especially in a time where things are already tense anyway. So that's something to kind of bear in mind. That being said, quoting further: "The Twin Cities campaign, though, has been a flashpoint, with fights over at least six - the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and 10th amendments." If I recall, the 3rd Amendment is actually a very interesting one. It's about the quartering of troops and Trump went ahead and brought troops up in D.C. The way he did that, it is my understanding, it is legal because D.C. is kind of its own entity. It very much has creeped me out, the notion of federal troops anywhere else in the country, let alone D.C.; it's already disconcerting there. Again the founders were very adamant in their belief that standing armies are something to be handled with care at best, and really there shouldn't be one unless there is a declared war. I'm not going to get into that but only pointing out here that a lot of this stuff has more ramifications on the Constitution than a lot of folks are really giving it credit for it, and look this is not minor stuff. If they are ignoring the Fourth Amendment because they say, "oh our I-205 form allows us to do that" as I have discussed in another video, where does that end? It's not great. Quoting further: "of the first 10 amendments. Conservative leaning scholars see both lawyers and judges overstepping their bounds in fiery filings and opinions, while liberal-leaning counterparts see a notable disregard by the Trump Administration for Bill of Rights provisions." I am also tired of the dialectic in all of this. It's not about liberal - conservative; it's not about left - right; it's not about Republican - Democrat; it's just about our Constitutional liberties and our inherent liberties as enshrined by the Constitution. And when an Executive is just wantonly disregarding that, that's concerning and should be for the citizenry. It's not a matter of being left leaning, right leaning, whatever. It's just "are you an American and do you treasure your liberties?" 

Quoting further: Quote: "You could teach a great constitutional law seminar about the Bill of Rights just through the violations that have taken place in Minneapolis alone," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, Democrat from Maryland, a former constitutional law professor. Quote: "There have been massive violations of the civil rights of minority groups in the past, like native Americans and African Americans and Asian Americans, but it is hard to sum up any historical analogy to the systematic violation of all of the fundamental constitutional rights of the people in such a comprehensive and indiscriminate way." Yeah, it's sort of the attitude with which this is being done as, "oh forget those pesky Rights. What are you doing? What do you want? You want the country to have a problem with illegal immigration?" No, there are people that were very concerned about illegal immigration that also want to maintain their liberties. Quoting further: "Randy Barnett, Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, said he saw the battle over the Bill of Rights in Minneapolis as "unprecedented" for how many far-fetched claims he believes advocates have made that have gained traction with District Court Judges. Quote: "As a Ninth Amendment scholar, I'm a little disappointed that this provision has yet to be thrown against the wall to see if it sticks," (excuse me) joked Barnett, who represented the National Federation of Independent Businesses in its constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act." And just for those who are unaware, the Ninth Amendment, the text thereof states, quote:  "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yeah, that is the crux of it. And what is the 9th Amendment talking about? Well the 9th Amendment is saying, hey in the main body of the Constitution there is the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, and this has been trampled on for years especially under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but basically it says "Hey the Feds don't have unfettered authority. They only have authority in those areas which are specifically laid out in plain language by the Constitution." If it doesn't fall within their bailiwick, they have no say in it whatsoever. And again the 10th Amendment speaks to this as well; it falls to the states and the people respectively. But the 9th says more importantly, it's sort of an inverse to that notion in the Bill of Rights which the 9th Amendment is saying, hey and this was the argument that operated against the Bill of Rights, there were certain founders who said "hey we don't want this Bill of Rights, because later people will say hey if it's not written down there you don't have a right to do it." That was basically the thinking. Well the 9th Amendment deals with that. It says hey, just because something isn't enumerated as one of the rights of the citizenry or whatever - maybe the states as well if you're talking about the 10th Amendment - just because it's not enumerated as a right, does not mean it's not a right, because we all have inherent rights and liberties. The Constitution merely reflects those or represents those or acts as an enshrinement of those notions as best we can articulate, but it is not an exhaustive list of all of our rights. And not being hassled by one's own government - I saw a clip of a guy who was pumping gas, and ICE walks up to him and says, "hey let's see some ID" and he's like "No, why? No thanks." And then they get all in his face and start causing him a hassle. Well they don't have the right to do that, and he has the inherent 9th Amendment right, inherent right specifically, but as enshrined by the 9th Amendment, to pump his gas without being hassled for ID by some Government Agent. Again, this Barnett person brings up a really good point. The 9th Amendment is being ignored greatly in all of these matters, but it's all concerning. 

Look, as I have discussed, I had my issues with illegal immigration. Probably one of the few US Immigration Attorneys that has the position I have about illegal immigration, because I don't live in the United States and if I was practicing over there, I would probably have quite a few more folks who had problems in that way that might be my clients. I don't practice Immigration Law that way - I'm sort of from the outside looking in - but that being said, illegal immigration in and of itself is a problem because at a certain point, you have to ask if it's not tantamount to invasion. But again we can't deal with the response to that by just throwing out all of the very things that make America great to begin with. So hopefully as time goes by, the Judiciary will start to sort of shake this out and the citizenry will realize there may be better techniques to dealing with illegal aliens, and most importantly techniques which do not abrogate the major rights and liberties enshrined in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth, and in my opinion the Ninth, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.