[chimeracoder]

Yes, but be careful when interpreting the bill of rights from a literal interpretation of the text. The actual meaning of the constitution as applied by the courts is what is legally binding (legal precedence under common law)[0], and there are numerous cases in which rights are applied differently for citizens and non-citizens.

One can make the argument that the literal text of the constitution is "what the Founding Fathers meant", but one can also easily argue that since the Constitution is a living document, the effective interpretation and application of the Constitution by the courts, bound by legal precedent, is "what the Founding Fathers meant" as well.

One can also make the argument that since judicial review as we currently know it began with Marbury vs. Madison in 1803[1], so the courts should not have this level of authority when interpreting the consitution.

But then one can make the argument that.... well, you get the idea.

This debate predates the text editor wars by a couple of centuries, so don't expect to see it resolved conclusively anytime soon! :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison