4 ms·

>I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal pur

>I figure the Constitution ought to apply to anyone within it's jurisdiction, which to my mind means that if you are subject to our jursdiction for criminal purposes, you're subject to our constitution for it's protections as well. I fully agree, hopefully the SCOTUS will confirm this in a ruling at some point. Additionally the Declaration of Independence included this statement: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" I think the consent to be governed should be established whether implied or expressed in a way more specific that just being a person somewhere on earth.

rjf72 7y ago
The declaration of independence does specify how consent is expressed. Quoting the relevant section: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." In other words it is by refusing to revolt that people consent to be governed. Revolution doesn't require all that many people, but it requires them to be willing to risk it all. See, for example, the Romanian revolution in 1989. [1] It's one of the most ironic revolutions. Their communist dictator, in an effort to prove his popularity, decided to force tens of thousands of people to appear in a public square to listen to his speech so it could be used as propaganda and broadcast to show his 'popularity.' 'You'll never believe what happened next.' 3 days later following a 2 hour trial their dictator was sentenced to death and executed immediately. The logic is circular (people consent by not not consenting), but I think reasonable. The reason is that there are many people who, given the choice, would reject consent anytime they failed to achieve victory in a democratic process. That would lead to complete chaos. And revolution is not a particularly high standard. Imagine if 0.1% of the US population (that's around 330k people) chose to move on DC with the goal of aggressively rebooting the government. They'd be near impossible to stop. And even if stopped, it would certainly trigger a rethink of our entire system which would be at least a partial victory. So if you can't get even 1/1000 people willing to risk it all, it's tough to claim that our evils are not sufferable, or are not reparable within the systems available to us. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Ceau%C8%99escu's_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Ceau%C8%99...
- drewmol 7y ago
  >In other words it is by refusing to revolt that people consent to be governed. My understanding based on the statement "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" is that this right to revolt is the nuclear option for people who have the ability to alter it and the ends which the government can be destructive towards are the initial rights previously outlined in the document. So if the US government doesn't work to secure these right for an Australian citizen and doesn't express their right to alter or abolish or revolt against the US government then it should not interpret their consent to be governed by US law for actions taken by them outside the US.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    Your phrasing there is not the clearest, but if I am understanding you correctly, would that not then be the 'fault' of the Australian government? A country can write whatever laws they want, but it's ultimately up to the country hosting those individuals to determine whether those laws mean anything. For a contemporary example the several Mueller indictments of Russian nationals are completely meaningless. They will never face a day in court because the Russian government does not tend to yield to US influence. There's 0 reason that e.g. the Australian government could not behave similarly, if they so wished. It comes with political and other risks, but so is the same with all decisions people make.

rjf72 7y ago

The declaration of independence does specify how consent is expressed. Quoting the relevant section: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." In other words it is by refusing to revolt that people consent to be governed. Revolution doesn't require all that many people, but it requires them to be willing to risk it all. See, for example, the Romanian revolution in 1989. [1] It's one of the most ironic revolutions. Their communist dictator, in an effort to prove his popularity, decided to force tens of thousands of people to appear in a public square to listen to his speech so it could be used as propaganda and broadcast to show his 'popularity.' 'You'll never believe what happened next.' 3 days later following a 2 hour trial their dictator was sentenced to death and executed immediately. The logic is circular (people consent by not not consenting), but I think reasonable. The reason is that there are many people who, given the choice, would reject consent anytime they failed to achieve victory in a democratic process. That would lead to complete chaos. And revolution is not a particularly high standard. Imagine if 0.1% of the US population (that's around 330k people) chose to move on DC with the goal of aggressively rebooting the government. They'd be near impossible to stop. And even if stopped, it would certainly trigger a rethink of our entire system which would be at least a partial victory. So if you can't get even 1/1000 people willing to risk it all, it's tough to claim that our evils are not sufferable, or are not reparable within the systems available to us. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Ceau%C8%99escu's_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Ceau%C8%99...

drewmol 7y ago
>In other words it is by refusing to revolt that people consent to be governed. My understanding based on the statement "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" is that this right to revolt is the nuclear option for people who have the ability to alter it and the ends which the government can be destructive towards are the initial rights previously outlined in the document. So if the US government doesn't work to secure these right for an Australian citizen and doesn't express their right to alter or abolish or revolt against the US government then it should not interpret their consent to be governed by US law for actions taken by them outside the US.
- rjf72 7y ago
  Your phrasing there is not the clearest, but if I am understanding you correctly, would that not then be the 'fault' of the Australian government? A country can write whatever laws they want, but it's ultimately up to the country hosting those individuals to determine whether those laws mean anything. For a contemporary example the several Mueller indictments of Russian nationals are completely meaningless. They will never face a day in court because the Russian government does not tend to yield to US influence. There's 0 reason that e.g. the Australian government could not behave similarly, if they so wished. It comes with political and other risks, but so is the same with all decisions people make.