BTW, has the supreme court ruled on individuals' right to bear arms? The amendment itself seems kind of ambiguous, because of that whole "well-regulated militia" part.
Also, I have been mystified about all the various discussions of what the government can do to non-citizens, or outside of U.S. territories. Is my impression that the Constitution applies to every person within U.S. territory and to every action of the U.S. Government no matter where, somehow mistaken? How could DC's not-a-state status possibly change the applicability of the constitution there? Does the Constitution say anywhere that it only applies to Citizens, or only applies within the borders of the United States? It seems ludicrous to me that the intent of the constitution could be thus--but then we have guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc etc.
Nope, that's why it's so exciting that the D.C. case may go to SCOTUS: there has never been an explicit ruling by SCOTUS, to the best of my knowledge, that the Second Amendment means an individual right to bear arms. In fact the Court hasn't even taken a Second Amendment case in over 70 years. The not-a-State argument would presumably come from the fact that most of the Constitution is about States and State citizens; however, the 14th Amendment grants Americans federal as well as state citizenship, so the Second Amendment would apply to D.C. through the 14th.
Also re: Guantanamo, yes, the argument has been that that's not inside the U.S., the U.S. controls what goes on there but does not have jurisdiction there - see Rasul v. Bush - but SCOTUS granted cert to two Gitmo cases, Boumediene and al-Odah, so (unless Bush shuts down Gitmo before the case comes up, rendering it moot) SCOTUS may well yet decide that these situations are, as you say, ludicrous, and the Constitution applies in our internment camps in Cuba just as it does in D.
( ... )
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
BTW, has the supreme court ruled on individuals' right to bear arms? The amendment itself seems kind of ambiguous, because of that whole "well-regulated militia" part.
Also, I have been mystified about all the various discussions of what the government can do to non-citizens, or outside of U.S. territories. Is my impression that the Constitution applies to every person within U.S. territory and to every action of the U.S. Government no matter where, somehow mistaken? How could DC's not-a-state status possibly change the applicability of the constitution there? Does the Constitution say anywhere that it only applies to Citizens, or only applies within the borders of the United States? It seems ludicrous to me that the intent of the constitution could be thus--but then we have guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc etc.
Reply
Also re: Guantanamo, yes, the argument has been that that's not inside the U.S., the U.S. controls what goes on there but does not have jurisdiction there - see Rasul v. Bush - but SCOTUS granted cert to two Gitmo cases, Boumediene and al-Odah, so (unless Bush shuts down Gitmo before the case comes up, rendering it moot) SCOTUS may well yet decide that these situations are, as you say, ludicrous, and the Constitution applies in our internment camps in Cuba just as it does in D. ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment