Not quite. If the rights of the subject, while he was on the territory of a foreign nation, were violated at the instigation of persons on the territory of the United States, by persons on that foreign territory, then by original understanding of the "law of nations" each nation would have exclusive jurisdiction over the actions of the persons committed on their respective territories. The actions of the persons on U.S. territory would be governed by statutes under the authority of the "Laws of Nations" clause, to be found in Title 18, Ch. 45, under which penalties could be imposed, but such actions would not affect the rights of the subject on foreign territory.
The confusion over who are "the people" was that originally a distinction was made between citizens, with political rights such as being represented in elections or referenda, directly as electors, or virtually through electors, and denizens with a right to remain on and return to the territory. It has two meanings: (1) the sovereign source of all law, and (2) those who enjoy the protections of "part of a national community". This second group includes not only citizens, but legal foreign visitors, and peaceful illegals, but citizens originally excluded the members of certain "domestic nations" -- native Americans. The precedent of Dred Scott attempted to put blacks into that category, and attach rights protections to "citizens" rather than to "persons", which is contrary to the actual words of the Constitution.
Foreign visitors enjoy the same rights of citizens, while they are on U.S. territory, except the rights peculiar to citizenship to vote and hold office, and of denizenship to remain, which means they may be removed from U.S. territory and their rights violated elsewhere, subject to the law of nations and laws of other nations.
All this can be made more clear with Venn diagrams, but ASCII email doesn't support them.
Peter Boucher wrote:
It's more the "class of persons" that swayed it than the place where the search took place, but the determination of who is in this class of persons identified as "the people" in the Preamble, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and in Art. I, 2, cl. 1, is not as cut and dry as determining citizenship.
The decision says (rather vaguely) that the term "the people," as used in the above-listed sections of the constitution "refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol= 259
---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------
