3 ms·
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.wikiped
by 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 agoThank you for providing that link!
- charonn0 13y agoAh, good point. IANAL, can you tell? ;)
- dylangs1030 13y agoIt'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 agoJustice 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...