Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bane 928 days ago
As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.
1 comments
phpisthebest 928 days ago
I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control

>> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.

link
bane 928 days ago
Why doesn't it?
link
phpisthebest 928 days ago
Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments.

If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all

link
bane 927 days ago
But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.
link
dragonwriter 927 days ago
The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.
link
bane 927 days ago
> The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world

I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be.

If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?

link