5 ms·

it is fascinating to watch the carves out and weird exceptions the Supreme court has granted over the centuries going against completely the original intent of

it is fascinating to watch the carves out and weird exceptions the Supreme court has granted over the centuries going against completely the original intent of the constitution Citizenship being a factor on if the government can spy on you or not is one of them. The constitution should apply to government actions all government actions, not just those take inside the confines of the geographic regions known as the US, and not just those taken against US Citizens. The reading of "the people" to mean it only applies to Citizens is very novel IMO...

jonny_eh 4y ago
Relevant: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_...
mc32 4y ago
Wouldn’t that mean the US would be at a disadvantage if other countries could spy on is big we could not spy on them (physically or electronically)? If least this gives US citizens some rights with regard to domestic spying.
- FpUser 4y ago
  They do it too sort of argument. They do a lot of things. Like stoning women for adultery.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Maybe... but that is why we have an amendment process... Sadly for the last ~100 years we have taken the easier path of just ignoring it when the constitution gets in the way
xxpor 4y ago
edit: the HLR article covers this exact question much better than what I've posted here. the concept of international telecommunication is novel from the perspective of the constitution, but anyway... The 4th amendment starts: >The right of the people The preamble starts: >We the People of the United States The 17th amendment says: >The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote It's pretty clear "the people" refers to citizens.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >the concept of international telecommunication is novel from the perspective of the constitution But not of International Communication. >>It's pretty clear "the people" refers to citizens. If that is in fact the case, then why are all these rights the extended to all persons inside the Geographic US, Non-citizens are in fact all the time granted many / all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution simply because of their presence inside the border of the US. Seems to be a conflict there, if by your account rights are only protected from government infringement if you are a US Citizen then we have loads of case law that runs afoul of that position
  - macinjosh 4y ago
    Generally speaking rights are extended to all inside the border of the US because it is impossible to immediately tell who is and is not a citizen. There is no federal citizenship ID or database. So the government finds it easier to simply assume anyone inside the US is a citizen to avoid constitutional/legal issues. Outside of the US the chances of running into problems with a dragnet is much lower so they just do it.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  I don't see the word citizens mentioned anywhere. As a parallel point, there were no immigration laws at all until a hundred years after the constitution was ratified. Anyone could come to the US.
  - 4y ago
nyolfen 4y ago
totally absurd. the constitution is a legal framework, not religious precepts. those outside the US have no duties to the US government when not in its jurisdiction and vice versa. of course the federal govt has been pushing against this itself, eg assange. you do not want to live in a world with a universal state.
- Joeri 4y ago
  I would very much prefer to live in a world with a single state, provided it is a democracy. The current international system is clearly inferior as a means of providing universal well-being than a world government would be. In fact, i don’t see a way to get universal human rights without a global government. Believing such a thing to be impossible or undesirable comes across to me as giving up on the concept of universal human rights.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    there will never be a system with "universal well-being" and this kind of thinking is religiously delusional. the world is made up of many zero-sum systems and resources. someone always has to win, and comparative advantage will always lead to defection.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I agree with you in principle, but today I think it's completely impossible: too many people really prefer living in authoritarian systems. Even in democratic systems, we've seen many times that people will happily vote for fascists and authoritarians who want to remove their democracy.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I am not sure how my comments relates to yours unless you have completely inverted both my comment and the purpose of the US Constitution. no where in my comment did I state or imply anyone US Citizen or not has any duties to the US government. The US Constution does not impose any duties on any person at all, citizen or not The entire purpose and scope of the US Constitution is the establishment of the US Federal government as a Republic composed of US States. There in limiting the power of this government to a specific list of powers and reserving all other power for the States and the people. As a US Citizen, the US Constitution is not aimed at me, it is aimed at the federal government, many people misunderstand this relationship.

jonny_eh 4y ago

Relevant: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_...

mc32 4y ago

Wouldn’t that mean the US would be at a disadvantage if other countries could spy on is big we could not spy on them (physically or electronically)? If least this gives US citizens some rights with regard to domestic spying.

FpUser 4y ago
They do it too sort of argument. They do a lot of things. Like stoning women for adultery.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phpisthebest 4y ago
Maybe... but that is why we have an amendment process... Sadly for the last ~100 years we have taken the easier path of just ignoring it when the constitution gets in the way

xxpor 4y ago

edit: the HLR article covers this exact question much better than what I've posted here. the concept of international telecommunication is novel from the perspective of the constitution, but anyway... The 4th amendment starts: >The right of the people The preamble starts: >We the People of the United States The 17th amendment says: >The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote It's pretty clear "the people" refers to citizens.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>the concept of international telecommunication is novel from the perspective of the constitution But not of International Communication. >>It's pretty clear "the people" refers to citizens. If that is in fact the case, then why are all these rights the extended to all persons inside the Geographic US, Non-citizens are in fact all the time granted many / all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution simply because of their presence inside the border of the US. Seems to be a conflict there, if by your account rights are only protected from government infringement if you are a US Citizen then we have loads of case law that runs afoul of that position
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Generally speaking rights are extended to all inside the border of the US because it is impossible to immediately tell who is and is not a citizen. There is no federal citizenship ID or database. So the government finds it easier to simply assume anyone inside the US is a citizen to avoid constitutional/legal issues. Outside of the US the chances of running into problems with a dragnet is much lower so they just do it.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
I don't see the word citizens mentioned anywhere. As a parallel point, there were no immigration laws at all until a hundred years after the constitution was ratified. Anyone could come to the US.
- 4y ago

nyolfen 4y ago

totally absurd. the constitution is a legal framework, not religious precepts. those outside the US have no duties to the US government when not in its jurisdiction and vice versa. of course the federal govt has been pushing against this itself, eg assange. you do not want to live in a world with a universal state.

Joeri 4y ago
I would very much prefer to live in a world with a single state, provided it is a democracy. The current international system is clearly inferior as a means of providing universal well-being than a world government would be. In fact, i don’t see a way to get universal human rights without a global government. Believing such a thing to be impossible or undesirable comes across to me as giving up on the concept of universal human rights.
- nyolfen 4y ago
  there will never be a system with "universal well-being" and this kind of thinking is religiously delusional. the world is made up of many zero-sum systems and resources. someone always has to win, and comparative advantage will always lead to defection.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I agree with you in principle, but today I think it's completely impossible: too many people really prefer living in authoritarian systems. Even in democratic systems, we've seen many times that people will happily vote for fascists and authoritarians who want to remove their democracy.
phpisthebest 4y ago
I am not sure how my comments relates to yours unless you have completely inverted both my comment and the purpose of the US Constitution. no where in my comment did I state or imply anyone US Citizen or not has any duties to the US government. The US Constution does not impose any duties on any person at all, citizen or not The entire purpose and scope of the US Constitution is the establishment of the US Federal government as a Republic composed of US States. There in limiting the power of this government to a specific list of powers and reserving all other power for the States and the people. As a US Citizen, the US Constitution is not aimed at me, it is aimed at the federal government, many people misunderstand this relationship.