> That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case.

Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ?

> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.

I don't know what to make of that statement. The constitution has plenty of articles dealing with citizen's rights. What am I missing ?

There's stuff about voting specifics I think, what specifically are you thinking of?

Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?

Becuase much of the document is there to limit the powers of the government. It doesn't grant rights to people, it acknowleges that people have those rights whether the constitution exists or not, and then proceeds to grant rights to the government

The preamble is who authored the constitution

Article 1 is all about how congress works

Article 2 about the president

Aritcle 3 about the courts

Article 4 about the states

Article 5 about the constitution

Article 6 about which laws are important

The Bill of rights further limits the power of government

Nothing specifically is about the people. The clause you state limits the powers of the state to take rights away from people.

The Constitution does not grant rights to people - because people (all people, globally) have all the rights by default. It does grant rights to government to do certain things, and it specifically limits the power of government to take away rights from people.

It is by no means settled that "the people of the United States" is explicitly and specifically citizenry and not aliens currently in the country for clauses not so specifying "citizens".

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. A quick Google search returns accounts of many debates about it (I should have mentioned I am not a US citizen, nor am I living in the US. I usually do, my bad).

No problem. Plenty of Americans don't know this, and there's a sizable proportion that wants you to think it's so settled.

Thanks.

It has something to do with citizens. For example firearm ownership and voting are restricted to citizens, not just people-who-happen-to-be-here.

> It has something to do with citizens. For example firearm ownership and voting are restricted to citizens, not just people-who-happen-to-be-here.

All the constitution has to say on firearm ownership is

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No mention of citizens.

The constitution does mention citizens

1) Limiting people from congress/senate/president unless they have been citizens for various lengths of time

2) The supreme court applies

3) States can't discriminate between people from one state or another

well at the time that was written only certain people were actually allowed to sit in government or vote, so it would seem those are the people who should have the rights outlined by the constitution, but it seems that the constitution at its formation did allow freedom of religion for women, who at the time were not allowed to vote. So it seems that there might be some leeway.

There was at one time the argument that the bill of rights codified some of the natural rights that were inherent in humans, to protect against government encroachment, as per The Rights of Man theory of natural rights https://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-04.htm but this is no longer the popular interpretation, generally theories that prevent power from being asserted will lose popularity, at least among the powerful.

The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.

> abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people

That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.

I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.

> There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer

Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.