There was a big debate around the bill of rights. Proponents felt it was essential, because otherwise the government would violate those rights. Opponents either didn’t feel this was a justified fear, actively wanted more state power, or claimed that enshrining certain rights explicitly implies that they were the only ones reserved to the people.

That last objection was the basis for the Tenth Amendment.

That said, in practice, what the government can and can’t do is decided not by the text of the Constitution but by the string of precedents that control its legal interpretation.

In other words, reading the Constitution gives you at best a very basic intuition of how the US political system works, and this intuition will often be very very wrong.

So, you’re theoretically right, but it doesn’t affect the practical reality on the ground even in principle.

That is the basis of every democracy. Consent of the governed and all that.

They also leverage mass media. This is not a relationship of control, just symbiosis: fear is still pretty easy to sell. <tin foil off>

Which is the situation we're in. If you don't have a positively asserted specific legal right, it doesn't otherwise exist, except in how limited your behaviors are by law.

"The sky is the limit" vs "the limit is the sky"

"Rights of citizens" and "limits of government" are two sides to the same coin.

Edit: should have used “person” rather than “citizen”. I was mirroring the verbiage used by the OP and should have been clearer. E.g. non-citizens are still granted Miranda rights

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

I think it’s generally well established that rights travel abroad with citizens. However, it’s less clear if they apply abroad (or even to U.S. territories) to non-citizens. E.g. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez claims it does not apply to non-citizens who do not have a voluntary association with the U.S.

Edit: I'll try to be more clear. The rights of U.S. citizens extend beyond the border when dealing with the U.S. government. I was not implying other governments must recognize U.S. Constitutional rights when dealing with U.S. citizens.

I would be incredibly surprised if that argument held up.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-obama-constitutional-...

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutiona...

There are also questions about scenarios like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki, where a US citizen was executed by the US without trial while overseas.

> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

It also uses the phrase, "the people." For example, in the 4th Amendment,

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the case of the 1st Amendment, which concerns freedom of speech/religion/the press, it appears to be a general prohibition on government interference with freedom of speech, with no specification of whose freedom of speech is meant:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Of course after the 14th Amendment was passed the legal theory of selective incorporation under the Due Process clause was developed in the early 20th century. Interestingly we are still in the process of incorporating the first eight amendments to the states 150 years later; e.g. the second amendment is the most recently incorporated amendment, the third still hasn't been incorporated though.

Note that if someone is being charged as some type of combatant or intelligence operative, they will have very few “rights” and apparently can be held for a very long time (see Gitmo).

0. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

For instance, the first amendment doesn't say "All citizens have the right to...", but rather says "Congress shall make no law..." Subtle difference, but important.

Similarly, other parts of the bill of rights refers to "people", not just citizens. Generally, for issues that happen entirely within the United States, it's interpreted to really mean "people". So if you're in the US on a work visa and get arrested, you are allowed to plead the 5th and it's supposed to be honored.

It gets weirder when events aren't entirely contained in the US. If I write an article critical of the US government while outside the US, do I have constitutional protection against US retribution? If so, does that come from my passport, or from the fact that the US government just isn't allowed to do that to anyone, period?

That's more what I'm asking.

If you are a citizen, yes. If you are not, there’s at least some precedent that the answer is no.

I’m curious to your perspective on the subtle difference in wording. What does this difference impart legally? To me it feels like a distinction without a difference

Edit: after having my morning coffee, I realized an important distinction is when the U.S. citizen is considered a combatant. See Anwar al-Awlaki, where the government stated, "We do not believe that al-Aulaqi's U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action", although it looks like the specific details about their opinions on his 4th amendment rights were not clear due to redaction. [1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal...

If the law said "All citizens have the right to express their opinion" then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is OK.

If, on the other hand, the law said "Congress will not make any laws restricting the expressing of opinions" (closer in wording to what we have) then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is no longer OK.