3 ms·

Hmmm... https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bil... I'm not seeing

by kefka 10y ago

Hmmm... https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bil... I'm not seeing "citizens" or "non-citizens" in any of these contexts. What I do see is: "Congress shall make no law", "right of the people", "consent of owner", and likewise. It's an unpopular view of the Bill of Rights, but shouldn't these rights be extended to everyone, and not merely "citizens"? Cause I'm certainly not seeing that word anywhere in there.

andyouwont33 10y ago
Reading the Constitution is nowhere near enough to understand 200+ years of U.S. law. It's akin to thinking reading the wiki page on Special Relativity means you're Einstein.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  In particular, the Supreme Court of the US gets to vote on what the Constitution means. And that sometimes yields non-intuitive interpretations of the plainly apparent reading of the rights amendments. For instance, the 4th Amendment would seem to indicate that the US cannot spy on foreigners without a warrant. Only two justices had the stones to confirm that. The majority voted that interpreting the amendment as written would make it too difficult for the US to gather foreign intelligence. They literally voted that extending basic human rights to everyone would be too inconvenient. It doesn't matter if the original intent was to protect everybody, rather than just citizens, when those tasked with judging cases may be swayed by political expedience. It is my opinion that reading the US Constitution should be sufficient to understand the entire foundation of US law, rather than also being forced to study several centuries of judicial precedent under Anglo-American Common Law. As an American, I want the US government to get a warrant before conducting a search, on anyone, anywhere. I don't particularly care whether they are citizens, because I don't want the US agent to be an asshole when supposedly representing and defending my interests.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
I believe "the people" is interpreted to mean the citizens of the United States. There are a lot of subtleties to the constitution and how our laws work.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
"Congress shall make no law" meant the laws that Congress gets to pass, which are laws that apply within the United States. Congress doesn't get to pass laws that apply to foreign countries. ("Laws" here are distinct from "treaties".) "People" meant citizens, not foreigners, even though I cannot think of any place where that is explicitly stated. It's pretty clearly implied, though, when you say "right of the people". What people does the Constitution give rights to? The people of the US, not the people of any other country.

by kefka 10y ago

andyouwont33 10y ago

Reading the Constitution is nowhere near enough to understand 200+ years of U.S. law. It's akin to thinking reading the wiki page on Special Relativity means you're Einstein.

logfromblammo 10y ago
In particular, the Supreme Court of the US gets to vote on what the Constitution means. And that sometimes yields non-intuitive interpretations of the plainly apparent reading of the rights amendments. For instance, the 4th Amendment would seem to indicate that the US cannot spy on foreigners without a warrant. Only two justices had the stones to confirm that. The majority voted that interpreting the amendment as written would make it too difficult for the US to gather foreign intelligence. They literally voted that extending basic human rights to everyone would be too inconvenient. It doesn't matter if the original intent was to protect everybody, rather than just citizens, when those tasked with judging cases may be swayed by political expedience. It is my opinion that reading the US Constitution should be sufficient to understand the entire foundation of US law, rather than also being forced to study several centuries of judicial precedent under Anglo-American Common Law. As an American, I want the US government to get a warrant before conducting a search, on anyone, anywhere. I don't particularly care whether they are citizens, because I don't want the US agent to be an asshole when supposedly representing and defending my interests.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

I believe "the people" is interpreted to mean the citizens of the United States. There are a lot of subtleties to the constitution and how our laws work.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

"Congress shall make no law" meant the laws that Congress gets to pass, which are laws that apply within the United States. Congress doesn't get to pass laws that apply to foreign countries. ("Laws" here are distinct from "treaties".) "People" meant citizens, not foreigners, even though I cannot think of any place where that is explicitly stated. It's pretty clearly implied, though, when you say "right of the people". What people does the Constitution give rights to? The people of the US, not the people of any other country.