[naasking]

> Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me.

1. That's not a valid analogy. The EU has no control over how people travel in other countries and any restrictions they may face. The US government does have control about how it treats people outside US borders. They're not remotely analogous.

2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.

[GunboatDiplomat]

>2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.

If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way. But it would be ridiculous to do so. The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves. It lays out how the government we create will act towards us. It specifically puts foreign affairs (how the government will act towards not-US people) under the jurisdiction of the President and does not extend rights to them.

This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.

[naasking]

> If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way.

Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate over its true meaning [1].

The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights. It's not at all a stretch that the bill of rights is an enumeration of how a government should preserve some subset of those rights. This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.

> The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves.

It's actually "the People" in the constitution and the declaration of independence when referring to the governed, and only "the people" in the bill of rights. Capitalization matters, particularly if we're talking about intent.

Further, the constitution lays the basic framework for establishing a government, and "governing yourselves" is only ONE purpose. Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government? It's in the opening paragraph of your constitution.

> This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.

No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.

[1] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t...

[GunboatDiplomat]

I'm not being a dick, you're being uncharitable.

>The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights.

So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.

> This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.

Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.

> Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government?

That aspect would argue more that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are applicable by the US government only to US citizens, residents, or visitors, and not to all people everywhere. The Insular Cases support this view.

>No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.

Yes, it is well trodden ground. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not make a difference.

[naasking]

> So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.

Excuse me, but tons of hoopla is made about the intentions of the founding fathers. The declaration of independence obviously has direct bearing on this question, and therefore obviously has direct bearing on interpreting the constitution.

> Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.

That's a weak reply. The point you've failed to grasp is that a constitution requires interpretation, and interpretations change, even despite contrary precedent. The Supreme Court has changed interpretations on fundamental rights multiple times over the US's existence. The US constitution can be interpreted in the same way as other countries have done.

[dragonwriter]

> The declaration of independence obviously has direct bearing on this question, and therefore obviously has direct bearing on interpreting the constitution.

Insofar as the intent of framers of the Constitution (a set distinct from, though overlapping, the drafters and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) has relevance to interpreting the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence has very little value in establishing that intent, not only because the people are different, but because it is separated by fairly critical events from the drafting of the Constitution, which was, after all, not a response to the conditions that the DoI was drafter in response to, but a response to the perceived failures of the system of government adopted under the Articles of Confederation.

[rmc]

Other countries' constitutions cover non-citizens.