3 ms·
Sorry, but you are wrong. But that's ok, its a common misconception about constitutional law. The first amendment does carry those restrictions, but it is not
by chapium 7y ago
Sorry, but you are wrong. But that's ok, its a common misconception about constitutional law. The first amendment does carry those restrictions, but it is not the only law affecting those rights. Specifically, the "privileges and immunities" clause from the 14th amendment has extended the 1st amendment to apply to the rights of citizens and has been interpreted as such by the Supreme Court in various cases.
JA is not a US Citizen, and I admit I do not know where that lands him constitutionally speaking.
- monocasa 7y agoCan you cite what case law backs up that reading?
- chapium 7y agoHere is an example paper: https://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html https://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html
- monocasa 7y agoNone of that really applies to this situation. It was that originally it wasn't clear if the 1st amendment applied to state governments as well, but the interpretations of that pre 14th amendment were that the state governments could restrict what the first amendment guarantees, and post 14th amendment state governments can't restrict the 1st amendment for citizens. Assange is being charged with civilian, federal charges, so the citizens only interpretation doesn't really apply.
- awb 7y agoBut the moment he's tried in a US court or lands in the US presumably he has those rights. We don't treat tourists under a different Constitution or deny them 1st amendment rights.
- SllX 7y agoThe Privileges and Immunities clause isn’t relevant to this discussion, but you’re welcome to make your case that it is.
- lucas_membrane 7y agoWhen I tried to find out what "Privileges and Immunities" meant, IIRC, the Supreme Court had, within a few years after passage of the 14th amendment, defined it narrowly to include the right to travel from place to place, the right to sail the navigable waters of the U.S., and not much else. Has that changed?