5 ms·

But it's not framed as "rights of citizens" in the actual wording of the Constitution (it was intended to be, yes, but that's another topic). For instance, the

But it's not framed as "rights of citizens" in the actual wording of the Constitution (it was intended to be, yes, but that's another topic). For instance, the first amendment doesn't say "All citizens have the right to...", but rather says "Congress shall make no law..." Subtle difference, but important. Similarly, other parts of the bill of rights refers to "people", not just citizens. Generally, for issues that happen entirely within the United States, it's interpreted to really mean "people". So if you're in the US on a work visa and get arrested, you are allowed to plead the 5th and it's supposed to be honored. It gets weirder when events aren't entirely contained in the US. If I write an article critical of the US government while outside the US, do I have constitutional protection against US retribution? If so, does that come from my passport, or from the fact that the US government just isn't allowed to do that to anyone, period? That's more what I'm asking.

bumby 7y ago
>If I write an article critical of the US government while outside the US, do I have constitutional protection against US retribution? If you are a citizen, yes. If you are not, there’s at least some precedent that the answer is no. I’m curious to your perspective on the subtle difference in wording. What does this difference impart legally? To me it feels like a distinction without a difference Edit: after having my morning coffee, I realized an important distinction is when the U.S. citizen is considered a combatant. See Anwar al-Awlaki, where the government stated, "We do not believe that al-Aulaqi's U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action", although it looks like the specific details about their opinions on his 4th amendment rights were not clear due to redaction. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal-memo-backing-drone-strike-is-released/2014/06/23/1f48dd16-faec-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal...
- i_dont_know_ 7y ago
  Someone has linked to a really nice legal review somewhere up in the comments, so my question is mostly answered now... but to answer your question about what I see as a difference in wording above: If the law said "All citizens have the right to express their opinion" then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is OK. If, on the other hand, the law said "Congress will not make any laws restricting the expressing of opinions" (closer in wording to what we have) then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is no longer OK.
  - bumby 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. In addition to your point, it sounds to me that the clarification is already built into the specific wording, since the Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "citizen" as you previously stated.

bumby 7y ago

>If I write an article critical of the US government while outside the US, do I have constitutional protection against US retribution? If you are a citizen, yes. If you are not, there’s at least some precedent that the answer is no. I’m curious to your perspective on the subtle difference in wording. What does this difference impart legally? To me it feels like a distinction without a difference Edit: after having my morning coffee, I realized an important distinction is when the U.S. citizen is considered a combatant. See Anwar al-Awlaki, where the government stated, "We do not believe that al-Aulaqi's U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action", although it looks like the specific details about their opinions on his 4th amendment rights were not clear due to redaction. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal-memo-backing-drone-strike-is-released/2014/06/23/1f48dd16-faec-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal...

i_dont_know_ 7y ago
Someone has linked to a really nice legal review somewhere up in the comments, so my question is mostly answered now... but to answer your question about what I see as a difference in wording above: If the law said "All citizens have the right to express their opinion" then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is OK. If, on the other hand, the law said "Congress will not make any laws restricting the expressing of opinions" (closer in wording to what we have) then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is no longer OK.
- bumby 7y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. In addition to your point, it sounds to me that the clarification is already built into the specific wording, since the Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "citizen" as you previously stated.