First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
–Pastor Martin Niemöller
The claim that the “Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners” didn’t begin with the Bush administration, but it gained a lot of momentum under it. So much so that I would guess everybody reading this article (thanks to both of you) has heard that claim multiple times and may even believe it to be legally sound. It isn’t.
The Constitution covers a lot of ground, so I am not going to pretend to offer a treatise on each provision that may or may not apply to foreigners. Instead, let’s keep this to the context in which the claim currently is being made in the news- that foreign terrorists have no constitutional rights under any circumstance.
First, let’s begin where any constitutional analysis should begin- its text.
Continue reading »
1. CongressMatters explains how the “sidecar” option can work to pass health care reform.
2. Ezra Klein notes that the devil is in the details of Obama’s proposed spending freeze, but the freeze risks hurting the poor the most.
3. President Obama was selected for jury duty in Chicago. Apparently someone in Chicago didn’t think he might be busy.
4. The students and faculty at Seton Hall University School of Law have done a remarkable job of reconstructing the events that lead to the death of three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their full report and findings can be found here.
5. The US law firm of Perkins Coie represented pro bono Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo Bay detainee whose case ultimately found its way to the US Supreme Court. The attorneys who worked on the case gave a video presentation of their experiences which can be viewed here.
6. At least one Republican Senator promises to use all procedural mechanisms available to stop the “sidecar” option. Why is it that using reconciliation to amend a bill is deemed “trickery” and “shenanigans” but using the filibuster to stop 59 Senators from passing legislation isn’t?
Recent Comments