Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You said, "I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil." I wasn't sure whether you said "US" to distinguish from the states.
Yup, I had that backwards.
About fifteen years ago, I knew these cases really, really well. Two observations: (1) many of the cases you cite are about immigrants who were physically in the country, so what you have is a doctrine that is not really related to geography, and (2) this is court-created doctrine, not something that comes from the text of the Constitution.
|
I knew the cases well about 20 or 25 years ago, so your knowledge is more current. But, of course, when you rule the constitution doesn't apply your logic is often going to be based on something outside the constitution. Many of the cases deal with people here in the country whom the government is seeking to exclude, and it's particularly heinous there, but others deal with actions of the US abroad, often seizing assets but on occasion people.
I now see why you thought I might make a federal / state distinction, but it was the farthest thing from my mind.
Let me say, I understand the logic of the cases dealing with applicability of the constitution abroad or to aliens from some people, but have a hard time reconciling the logic of these cases with people like Scalia, who want to argue the government has limited powers and if they don't derive specifically from the constitution they aren't there. It's like putting an asterisk on that logic and noting in the footnote, "never mind."
