Replies

NO, it’s a document...of protection....FOR CITIZENS only.
You’re bass ackwards!!!!!

Let's look at some of the language:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner,
(Must one be a citizen in order to own a house? If they aren't a citizen, does that mean that the third doesn't apply?)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
(Does this mean that there is no protection for non-citizens from having their property seized? I guess the US just went into the keep your wallet hidden classification for tourists.)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
(Does this mean that non-citizens aren't persons?)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial […]
(Except, apparently, criminal prosecutions wherein the accused isn't a citizen.)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
(Except, apparently, when one of the litigants isn't a citizen.)

You live in a f-ed up world where the rules of logic don't hold. I think Ibn Sina would have a few words for you.

Very interesting exchange between you two. I think I may have a solution that is quite reasonable.

I do not believe it is reasonable to infer that the Bill of Rights was intended by its authors to extend to the entire world’s citizenry. It’s original intent was to apply to all people in the natural borders of the United States, be they citizens or not. This was of course contingent upon whether or not they were citizens when citizenship was a key component of a law in question. Treason for example. It wouldn’t be possible to try anyone for treason if such a person wasn’t a citizen of the US to begin with. Thus we can see some of the Constitution wasn’t written for non-Citizens.

However returning to the notion of sovereignty that I touched on briefly before, some of the Constitution was written for all people not just citizens. These would be the Bill of Rights (mostly). We can see this is true from One Wing’s examples of the hapless tourist losing his wallet to the state, or being subjected to midnight break-ins of his hotel room. This isn’t done, because it’s against the law and its against the law because its against the Constitution.

Now there are portions of the Bill of Rights that can’t apply to non-citizens even if they are on American soil, such as the right to bear arms, because clearly that right is granted to Americans to defend themselves from oppressive government. Not every person on the planet.

This is where we find our happy medium I’d say: the Constitution was written by Americans to protect US citizens from overreaching government. On US soil. Overseas it has no application. But anywhere on sovereign US soil, it does, whether one is a US citizen or not. Why? The reason is simple, because otherwise there would be nothing to prevent the egregious acts One Winged described and also, in granting such protections to anyone, citizen or not on US soil the rule of law can be more easily maintained. This again though would not apply to non citizens overseas. This simply must be the intent of the founders; they didn’t intend to set up a world government, no matter how limited. They only intended to protect everyone from their proposed government while on US soil.