4 ms·

While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v.

While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2] [1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=182&invol=244 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vo... [2]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.htm...

dylangs1030 13y ago
While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
- kposehn 13y ago
  Thank you for providing that link!
- charonn0 13y ago
  Ah, good point. IANAL, can you tell? ;)
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    It's perfectly alright, what you cited was dated to 1901, but the United States did have a longstanding tradition beyond that (up until 1957) of not upholding constitutional rights for citizens abroad. So, it's very reasonable to think this is still the case due to the abundance of cases which reinforced that precedent. That's why Reid v. Covert was such a landmark case, it completely overturned the precedent. IANAL either, however :)
- charonn0 13y ago
  Justice Black, who wrote the Reid opinion[1], did so in terms which are very much applicable to the current situation: The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and, if allowed to flourish, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. That sentence basically sums up my entire viewpoint on warrantless government dragnets. [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...
grecy 13y ago
What about people in the USA that are not citizens of the USA?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Normal protections apply (except possibly "near" the border, someone else will have to link to the outraged web sites)

dylangs1030 13y ago

While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

kposehn 13y ago
Thank you for providing that link!
charonn0 13y ago
Ah, good point. IANAL, can you tell? ;)
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  It's perfectly alright, what you cited was dated to 1901, but the United States did have a longstanding tradition beyond that (up until 1957) of not upholding constitutional rights for citizens abroad. So, it's very reasonable to think this is still the case due to the abundance of cases which reinforced that precedent. That's why Reid v. Covert was such a landmark case, it completely overturned the precedent. IANAL either, however :)
charonn0 13y ago
Justice Black, who wrote the Reid opinion[1], did so in terms which are very much applicable to the current situation: The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and, if allowed to flourish, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. That sentence basically sums up my entire viewpoint on warrantless government dragnets. [1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...

grecy 13y ago

What about people in the USA that are not citizens of the USA?

mpyne 13y ago
Normal protections apply (except possibly "near" the border, someone else will have to link to the outraged web sites)