4 ms·

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 persp

by 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.
- bmelton 4y ago
  The 1790 Naturalization Act came just a few years after ratification, and under the purview of its first president. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. You're probably referring to the Immigration Act of 1882, which was indeed one of earlier laws giving federal purview to the ports, and with some enforcement provisions, but your statement as written is incomplete.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Oh, good pint!
- yucky 4y ago
  Well yes, because there was no welfare state or income taxes.
bawolff 4y ago
What's so novel about international telecommunication? They had international mail back then. Is it really all that different?
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Also, international telecommunication itself literally predates the US Civil War. The USA has existed for longer with international telecommunication than without!
ceejayoz 4y ago
> > 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. No, this doesn't support that assertion. The Constitution doesn't forbid non-citizens from voting; fairly recent legislation does, and even there, only Federally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_Un... "Since 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections, with the threat of fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility and deportation... At one point or another before 1926 40 states had non-citizens voting in elections." The Constitution very specifically uses "citizen" in some spots, and "person" in others.

by xxpor 4y ago

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.

bmelton 4y ago
The 1790 Naturalization Act came just a few years after ratification, and under the purview of its first president. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798. You're probably referring to the Immigration Act of 1882, which was indeed one of earlier laws giving federal purview to the ports, and with some enforcement provisions, but your statement as written is incomplete.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Oh, good pint!
yucky 4y ago
Well yes, because there was no welfare state or income taxes.

bawolff 4y ago

What's so novel about international telecommunication? They had international mail back then. Is it really all that different?

nerdponx 4y ago
Also, international telecommunication itself literally predates the US Civil War. The USA has existed for longer with international telecommunication than without!

ceejayoz 4y ago

> > 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. No, this doesn't support that assertion. The Constitution doesn't forbid non-citizens from voting; fairly recent legislation does, and even there, only Federally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_Un... "Since 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections, with the threat of fines, imprisonment, inadmissibility and deportation... At one point or another before 1926 40 states had non-citizens voting in elections." The Constitution very specifically uses "citizen" in some spots, and "person" in others.