Should the US Constitution cover those not in the US also

a reply to: crazyewok

Is it still protected free speech if that speech is used to subvert the Constitution by a US citizen or a foreign national?

Actually, if you are in another country, you are required to follow their rules. If someone travels to this country, they have to follow our laws. So, why would Americans have special rights in a country they are visiting?

People think they are covered by our laws but don't realize that they most often aren't. If you go to India and break one of their laws, you can get thrown in prison. Everyone has heard of breaking Mexican laws when in Mexico and stuck in a cell for a long time. Of course, if you are a person who has connections in America, our government may step up in your defense. The other three hundred ten million Americans will not get that special treatment yet they think they will. Yet, people are constantly going to other countries where they could be detained thinking they are protected.

a reply to: rickymouse

This is true.

Ben Franklin somewhat famously said, "Where there is liberty, that is my country." Now, he likely didn't speak for all founders, but I do think this hints at the thinking of our founders.

It seems to me that the intent of our Declaration and Constitution was to create a governing system that provided opportunities for equity to all people's within its jurisdiction. Further, the Constitution limits what our government can do.

Thus, I believe it is wrong for us to have "loopholes" like Guantanamo Bay (or any number of "black" locations). I also believe it is wrong to have classes of people, each with different rights. India has tried that for centuries, and it doesn't appear very equitable under them either.

Does that mean the entire world must observe our laws? Nope, when in Rome.... But any human under the jurisdiction of the US absolutely should recieve the same basic human rights. "All humans are created equal" and all that jazz.

I agree with Mr. Furry considering that "God given" is relatively self-explanatory. This means ALL mean are created equal and thus should be judged, by Americans, by these standards. Meaning that the US government should consider all people as being equal and thus afford them the same rights as a US citizen. Even if I do not agree that non-citizens, such as POW's or whatever, should be given the same rights as a US citizen, the Constitution claims otherwise.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Great question. Because rights come from God, or nature for you Atheists, then it is only logical to say that all humans should be allowed to exercise said rights. There are those who will say that only Americans should benefit from the God given rights of our Constitution, and those same people will proclaim that God probably holds America in some high regard, because of our Christian founding. I used to be one of those people, but now I realize that, unfortunately, our nation wasn't founded on Christian values, and then there is this... Isaiah 40:17

Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.

So there you go... God literally could care less about the United States of America. That isn't to say that he doesn't care about the people, He just doesn't care about our Constitution, so by that logic I would assume that God would want for us to welcome the poor, sick, tired, etc.. of every nation. Now the next question is this... should they just be allowed to come in how and when they please, or should there be a legal process?

The emotional, nationalistic me says no...the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply only to citizens or guests of our country.

The rational me believes the rights are inalienable and God given, therefore self-explanatory.

After consulting with my selves, I arrived at the consensus that the rights are indeed inalienable and God given.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

Is it still protected free speech if that speech is used to subvert the Constitution by a US citizen or a foreign national?

I cannot imagine an example where someone would say something that would subvert our Constitution any more than it has been.

Even Snowden, the holy grail of traitorous scoundrels in the modern age, cannot subvert our Constitution. But he is in violation of a contract, and thus not executing "free speech", regardless of any views on morality in his actions.

To believe otherwise is a dangerous idea. Do we have to like "The Communist Manifesto"? Absolutely not. It doesn't mean we should burn it in the town square, however.

a reply to: beezzer

The Constitution stands on its own. The second "subversion" stops, is when it was already overthrown. The 1st would be no more.

Not because of the Constitution itself. But because of those entrusted to protect it.

Reboot with that, and all existing treaties, to see what happens.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Yes, it does. They do already. Legality they have a right to due process. That is just the way it is.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Perhaps a more relaxed attitude towards weapons would help Europe keeping fascists and dictators from taking over periodically?

Yeah, right now in the Ukraine we see what wonderful things happen if people have weapons at hand..
It sure is a thing we all need and want. Guerillawar in our cities, because some D***HEADS are starting expansive shootouts with the military!

I admit that I have no clue what is going on in the Ukraine in detail, because MSM-fog. But I have seen evidence of people shooting at military helicopters, bringing at least one down. Do we want that kind of weapon in the hands of idiots? And by "idiots" I mean the average-level human being. There are many of those..

a reply to: ManFromEurope

you may have just given the best reason to have guns in the hands of common folks.

Yes. I want the ability for regular folks. If Mexico were to annex the southwest in the way Russia has done Ukraine, you can bet your ass Ill be shooting at their military choppers, too.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Yes, and in all countries in which militia made a stand against the regime (I don't/didn't like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi etc., too!) - well, see what the people gained..

Working democracy? No.
Peaceful country? No.


I don't defend the old regimes, but weapons in the hand of warlords (and nothing else arose from all of those militias) is the way into doom.

One thing - it's bad for the US public relations, when those two set of rules are clearly different. I meant the surveillance - if the USA said that's OK both inside and outside, then it would be easier to justify sniffing in Europe, as and insist that your European allies are a bit over-sensitive, while you did nothing wrong. However, when you at least pay lip services to privacy within country, then your allies can feel that their citizens are a second class, what may be problematic for relations.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

What you are referring to were "revolutions". Where various intelligence agencies ran the show.

Ill point to one more uprising that worked out ok: The American Revolution.