4 ms·

The argument I've heard is that the constitution only applies to people who are in the US and her citizens. At a border crossing you're not in the US, and if yo

The argument I've heard is that the constitution only applies to people who are in the US and her citizens. At a border crossing you're not in the US, and if you're not a US citizen, then I think you literally have no rights.

rothbardrand 9y ago
I've seen that argument too, but it is false. There are no clauses in the constitution and particularly the bill of rights that limit rights to only US citizens on US soil. (other than restricting that the presidency be held by a citizen.) The constitution is a document that granted very limited power to the federal government and very broad rights to the citizens. All of what we have now-- from the TSA to the the NSA to DOE is unconstitutional.
valuearb 9y ago
That argument is wrong, the constitution not only applies to US citizens while they are out of the US, but it also applies to people who aren't US citizens. "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 of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  I agree that your statement is morally and logically correct. But from a legal perspective, it's quite false. SCOTUS has said that the government's need to ensure security at the border leads to a different balance of rights versus authority when you're near the border. (you should also ignore the fact that these rules put 2/3 of the US population "near the border" and thus having weakened protection over their rights) We can yell all we want about the clear meaning of the Constitution, but that doesn't stop the government from confiscating our stuff and throwing us in jail. For what it's worth.... There's a statement attributed to Abraham Lincoln, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", which is taken to mean that we shouldn't be so dogmatic about the Constitution as to let it destroy us. I think the words of this statement are correct, but everyone interprets them backwards. It's not a warning, it's an affirmation. As Americans, we should be confident that our Constitution is not something that can harm us if taken too literally. It's not a pretty idea, a luxury that becomes dangerous if indulged in too much. Rather, the Constitution is, indeed, our strength. We should have confidence that things like the free market of ideas that our freedom of speech creates, or that ready militia made up of all able adults who exercise the right to bear arms can defend us from invaders or errant government. I believe that our freedoms are not luxuries that we should forgo when the government decides there's sufficient danger: it's holding fast to them that will deliver us from danger.
logfromblammo 9y ago
The argument I make is that the Constitution exists to simultaneously establish a government and limit its powers, and applies to all agents of said government no matter where in the universe they may be. If the border crossing is not within the jurisdiction of the US, its agents have no authority there, and if it is within the jurisdiction of the US, its agents are subject to its laws and bound to obey them. And if the agent stands one foot in and one foot out, the person seeking entry ought to be able to turn around and return whence they came with all their possessions intact whenever they decide the crossing has become too burdensome and that they no longer wish to enter. A citizen of France has as much right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure by an agent of the US government in New York as in Paris, or in London. The Constitution is the adhesion contract for all persons seeking to become employees of the nation. It just so happens that no court in the US has been established asserting jurisdiction over territory outside the US, so if said Frenchperson had experienced a violation of their 4th Amendment rights by, for instance, a CIA spook without a warrant, in their own home in France, there is no court available to take the case other than the Supreme Court itself. It simply won't take the case, just because no one wants to open that can of worms. The de facto situation is that the US government does whatever TF it wants outside the US, because it has the money, might, and influence to get away with it, and the voting public back home just can't give enough focus to international shenanigans as well as their regular, day-to-day problems. By a strict reading, it breaks its own laws all the time, with absolute impunity. As a lifelong American, I have never heard any politician so much as mention this, even to dismiss it out of hand as a non-issue. Unlocking an electronic device to examine the bits stored on it is, in my opinion, an unreasonable search and seizure that goes well beyond the scope of the eminently reasonable searches for and seizures of physical contraband at border crossings. Therefore, by its own rules for unreasonable searches, a warrant must be obtained by the US government from itself before said unlocking can happen. Furthermore, if I saw a sign saying, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS", I would be pissed. Regardless of any laws in force, everyone has the right to be treated with a default level of respect and basic human dignity by their fellow humans, and to travel about their own planet without some arrogant yard ape turning their trip into a GDMF Kafka novella. You have the right to be addressed courteously. You have the right to protest any government overreach, even if it trivial, and even if it is not your government. You have the right to live free in the free world.

rothbardrand 9y ago

I've seen that argument too, but it is false. There are no clauses in the constitution and particularly the bill of rights that limit rights to only US citizens on US soil. (other than restricting that the presidency be held by a citizen.) The constitution is a document that granted very limited power to the federal government and very broad rights to the citizens. All of what we have now-- from the TSA to the the NSA to DOE is unconstitutional.

valuearb 9y ago

That argument is wrong, the constitution not only applies to US citizens while they are out of the US, but it also applies to people who aren't US citizens. "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 of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

CWuestefeld 9y ago
I agree that your statement is morally and logically correct. But from a legal perspective, it's quite false. SCOTUS has said that the government's need to ensure security at the border leads to a different balance of rights versus authority when you're near the border. (you should also ignore the fact that these rules put 2/3 of the US population "near the border" and thus having weakened protection over their rights) We can yell all we want about the clear meaning of the Constitution, but that doesn't stop the government from confiscating our stuff and throwing us in jail. For what it's worth.... There's a statement attributed to Abraham Lincoln, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", which is taken to mean that we shouldn't be so dogmatic about the Constitution as to let it destroy us. I think the words of this statement are correct, but everyone interprets them backwards. It's not a warning, it's an affirmation. As Americans, we should be confident that our Constitution is not something that can harm us if taken too literally. It's not a pretty idea, a luxury that becomes dangerous if indulged in too much. Rather, the Constitution is, indeed, our strength. We should have confidence that things like the free market of ideas that our freedom of speech creates, or that ready militia made up of all able adults who exercise the right to bear arms can defend us from invaders or errant government. I believe that our freedoms are not luxuries that we should forgo when the government decides there's sufficient danger: it's holding fast to them that will deliver us from danger.

logfromblammo 9y ago

The argument I make is that the Constitution exists to simultaneously establish a government and limit its powers, and applies to all agents of said government no matter where in the universe they may be. If the border crossing is not within the jurisdiction of the US, its agents have no authority there, and if it is within the jurisdiction of the US, its agents are subject to its laws and bound to obey them. And if the agent stands one foot in and one foot out, the person seeking entry ought to be able to turn around and return whence they came with all their possessions intact whenever they decide the crossing has become too burdensome and that they no longer wish to enter. A citizen of France has as much right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure by an agent of the US government in New York as in Paris, or in London. The Constitution is the adhesion contract for all persons seeking to become employees of the nation. It just so happens that no court in the US has been established asserting jurisdiction over territory outside the US, so if said Frenchperson had experienced a violation of their 4th Amendment rights by, for instance, a CIA spook without a warrant, in their own home in France, there is no court available to take the case other than the Supreme Court itself. It simply won't take the case, just because no one wants to open that can of worms. The de facto situation is that the US government does whatever TF it wants outside the US, because it has the money, might, and influence to get away with it, and the voting public back home just can't give enough focus to international shenanigans as well as their regular, day-to-day problems. By a strict reading, it breaks its own laws all the time, with absolute impunity. As a lifelong American, I have never heard any politician so much as mention this, even to dismiss it out of hand as a non-issue. Unlocking an electronic device to examine the bits stored on it is, in my opinion, an unreasonable search and seizure that goes well beyond the scope of the eminently reasonable searches for and seizures of physical contraband at border crossings. Therefore, by its own rules for unreasonable searches, a warrant must be obtained by the US government from itself before said unlocking can happen. Furthermore, if I saw a sign saying, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS", I would be pissed. Regardless of any laws in force, everyone has the right to be treated with a default level of respect and basic human dignity by their fellow humans, and to travel about their own planet without some arrogant yard ape turning their trip into a GDMF Kafka novella. You have the right to be addressed courteously. You have the right to protest any government overreach, even if it trivial, and even if it is not your government. You have the right to live free in the free world.