3 ms·
That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are
by monocasa 5y ago
That's not the interpretation the courts have taken. Essentially you can't take the constitution as a whole and say it applies to Americans or not. There are rights specifically conveyed to citizens (like voting). Those are clearly American only. Then in contrast to that there are rights conveyed to people generally, and rights formed as blanket restrictions on government. Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Those are interpreted as equally applying to non Americans. But, oddly, as not applying fully to acts of the American government taken outside of the borders of the United States, which is why Gitmo is used for sketchy War on Terror detentions, and not any place on sovereign US territory rather than territory notionally leased by the US from a foreign sovereign.
- monocasa 5y agoI think that's in the realm of grey legal theory that hasn't been tested in court. But yes, that's a great point, and I coincidentally just said something similar in another comment.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I think that's in the realm of grey legal theory that hasn't been tested in court. Johnson v Eisentrager (1950) is the landmark case, but its been fleshed out subsequently (and most of those decisions have narrowed the apparent gap in the Constitution it opened up), largely in response to the decision to use Gitmo as a get out of law free card. But the existence of that decision is why Gitmo got used. And given the split on those decisions limiting Eisentrager, I wouldn't want to see what the current court would do with cases in that area...