danno

I think it has to be assumed it only applies to USA Citizens. Otherwise, interpreting The Constitution will lead to contradictions. For example, 'Article 3, Section 3 (Treason)' clearly refers to USA Citizens. Otherwise, why can't the Gitmo prisoners be put to death under the offense of Treason?

jfuh

Do foreign tourists have free speech while visiting the US?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Cataclysmic 7.9 earthquake in China, how to donate to the relief fund.

Lachean

Good point, if you believe in habeus corpus and civil rights, I just do not see how the argument is not just as valid for non-citizens.

IMO the use of "people" rather than "citizens" in our founding documents indicate that such rights are universal to ALL people, not just US citizens.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

jfuh

Granted that right to bear arms or election of head may not be applicable but I do think that equality and the protection by police would all be applicable.
Otherwise if our laws of rights are inapplicable then would one say that our laws to prosecute are inapplicable? It's not a one way street.

Lachean

I don't think one should be deprived of his right to defend himself just because he isn't a citizen, and should be treated like any other if he abused that right or initiated violence.

The crime is the same, the punishment should be the same, so should be the protection that one appeals to from such punishment (rights.)

IMO the people of the world have the same inalienable rights as we do, no matter if their governments recognize them; and if we're the world police we claim to be, to fight civil rights abuses, we must first establish that said people had those rights in order for them to have been violated.

Bleeding Head Ken

It's applies to the Federal government and defines the powers of that body. The Bill of Rights is a set of declarations and further restrictions upon the Federal government. There are no citizens of the United States under the original Constitution, and the 14th amendment creates statutory citizenship which is not superior to your status as a human being and citizenship in the state in which you reside.

Simon W. Moon

Parts are construed as applying to to people in the US regardless of nationality. Other parts are more specific.

In addition to the lack of teh two people/ one act rule, they're not citiczens nor nationals so it can't be treason.

__________________
...we find it to be ...political superstition that governmental power is subject to no restraints. ...in a popularly governed nation, the government is simply a committee of management ... this committee of management has no intrinsic authority. ...its authority is given by those appointing it; and has just such bounds as they choose to impose.

RightinNYC

Exactly. Parts of the constitution apply to all "persons" while others just apply to "citizens." A good example of this: Art. 1 § 3

From this, you can tell that the term "person" is meant to be broader than "citizen"

Looking at the 14th Amendment, there's this:

This means that everyone born in the US is a citizen and that those citizens have certain priviliges and immunities that shall not be abriged. However, non-citizens still are guaranteed due process and equal protection.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

danno

I still can't see where terrorists fit in for treatment under the Constitution. If this ambiguity can't be resolved we should ship them to their home countries and stop this "War on Terror" because it just creates a legal morass (a terrorist isn't an innocent who just happens to find himself in the jurisdiction of the USA being harassed). Plus there is always another terrorist to replace the one apprehended.

Mach

Do you realize you are calling them terrorists, when you, and even they, do not now why they are there, nor what evidence exists to supoprt that claim? That is the problem. Our government is holding humans, without stated cause, without having any procedings, for 6 years now.

The military officer in charge there did not even believe most of them belonged there.

Maybe from your ethical viewpoint, government kidnapping without recourse is OK. It's not OK to some other people. It doesn't matter if they have the head of 9/11 there, or a mass bomber, or an ice cream truck driver, or you. Why would any of them magically get different ethical treatment. Thankfully we have a good system that affords people due process (before we kill them).

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan