4 ms·

That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't mak

That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. If I look at the text of the first amendment, for example: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This doesn't say anything about whose freedom of speech, only that Congress may not abridge it. The existence of the freedom of speech is taken as a given, regardless of whose speech it is. The restriction is on Congress to not be able to abridge that freedom of speech, no matter who holds it.

lakeWater 6y ago
The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.
johnchristopher 6y ago
> That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ? > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- iso1210 6y ago
  The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    I don't know what to make of that statement. The constitution has plenty of articles dealing with citizen's rights. What am I missing ?
    - iso1210 6y ago
      There's stuff about voting specifics I think, what specifically are you thinking of?
      - johnchristopher 6y ago
        Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?

lakeWater 6y ago

The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.

a1369209993 6y ago
> abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.

johnchristopher 6y ago

> That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ? > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

iso1210 6y ago
The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.
- johnchristopher 6y ago
  I don't know what to make of that statement. The constitution has plenty of articles dealing with citizen's rights. What am I missing ?
  - iso1210 6y ago
    There's stuff about voting specifics I think, what specifically are you thinking of?
    - johnchristopher 6y ago
      Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?