3 ms·

Interestingly enough, we did (kind of) try this once. There used to be a United States Court for China in the first half of the 1900s. This court exercised ex

Interestingly enough, we did (kind of) try this once. There used to be a United States Court for China in the first half of the 1900s. This court exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens living in China. Appeals were heard in the 9th Circuit. What I find most intriguing (or appalling) is that a District Court judge in the Western District of Washington (State) held in 1942 that a U.S. citizen who was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the U.S. Court for China was not entitled to Constitutional rights. Judge Black wrote in Casement v. Squier[0] that Petitioner Leroy Lomax, then-incarcerated on McNeil Island was "mistaken in his contention that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed him a trial thousands of miles beyond the boundaries of the United States." Lomax said that his confinement was unconstitutional because he had been denied a trial by jury (one of Americans, versus the bench trial he received). Judge Black quoted the U.S. Supreme Court decision In re Ross[1], where Justice Field wrote "[t]he Constitution can have no operation in another country." Thus, the Petitioner in Casement was denied habeus corpus. I've not studied law, so I'd like to hope that this was "clarified" or overturned, though I don't hold much hope. 0 - http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 http://www.leagle.com/decision/194234246FSupp296_1271 1 - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.htm...

logfromblammo 12y ago
Actually, the Constitution says The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. By my plain, non-lawyer reading of the law, Judge Black was either misinformed or lying about the law. It hardly matters if you are beyond the boundaries of the US, if the US comes to you to claim jurisdiction over you. It certainly is appalling. The Constitution must have operation over agents of the federation wherever they may go, even if not over citizens or other people, otherwise you end up with malicious workarounds like extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay prison. And while Oliver Twist is non legal canon, when the law is an ass, we should feel free to say so. The argument from In re Ross seemed very disingenuous, in that it claimed that a court established in a foreign country using the Constitution as the basis for its jurisdiction was then no longer bound by it thereafter. It is obvious to me, as a layman, that both Black and Field were seeking expedience rather than justice. I imagine that anyone seeking to overturn the precedent set by the Field opinion could simply petition as an expatriate filing income taxes, and claim it as sole argument against the 16th Amendment having operation in another country.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Actually, the Constitution says The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. By my plain, non-lawyer reading of the law, Judge Black was either misinformed or lying about the law. It hardly matters if you are beyond the boundaries of the US, if the US comes to you to claim jurisdiction over you. It certainly is appalling. The Constitution must have operation over agents of the federation wherever they may go, even if not over citizens or other people, otherwise you end up with malicious workarounds like extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay prison. And while Oliver Twist is non legal canon, when the law is an ass, we should feel free to say so. The argument from In re Ross seemed very disingenuous, in that it claimed that a court established in a foreign country using the Constitution as the basis for its jurisdiction was then no longer bound by it thereafter. It is obvious to me, as a layman, that both Black and Field were seeking expedience rather than justice. I imagine that anyone seeking to overturn the precedent set by the Field opinion could simply petition as an expatriate filing income taxes, and claim it as sole argument against the 16th Amendment having operation in another country.