https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/preamble-ic/interps/37
When reading the word “person” you can’t just make up your own definition of who that is when it clearly makes it known in the preamble “We the people (later referred to as person).
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/persons-people-peoples/
In the preamble the plural form of the singular word person is people. Each individual (person) encompassing “We (plural) the people (plural) of the United States . . .”(plural). is entitled to the rights expressed in the body of the Constitution.
That’s your answer? The preamble defined the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendments? And your evidence for such a link is what? You say so? Not likely. That would mean you are invoking an idiom for the word “person” because the meaning of the word “person” in 1790, when the BOR and 14th Amendment were drafted and ratified by 1791, the meaning of the word “person” didn’t include “citizen.” Rather, the meaning of the word “person” at the time was “a human being.” Consult a dictionary from the time.
There’s no evidence the word “person” in the 5th and 14th Amendment meant something other than the common meaning of “human being.”
The language of the due process clause, including the word “person,” long preceded the 5th and 14th Amendments. The wording traces its origin back to the Magna Charta, 39th clause, which says, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
Notice the phrase “free man,” as such a phrase wasn’t limited to English citizenship, like the word “person.”
The words “due process” appeared in a 1354 English statute. “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”
Observe the word “man,” parallel to the use of the word “person” in that it’s meaning doesn’t invoke citizenship.
The framers, keenly aware of the word “citizenship” as it appears specifically in the Constitution, see Article 4, Section 2, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” see also
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President,” did NOT use the word “citizen” for the protections of Due Process. If they wanted to limit the protections of Due Process to “citizens,” then they would have done so, as they qualified other provisions in the Constitution with the specific word “citizen.”
But the framers didn’t use the word “citizen” in either Due Process Clause, but the word “person” instead, and as a result, neither Due Process Clause is limited by the word “citizen.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk