One reason it matters is because our Constitution explicitly grants citizens (not foreigners) certain rights. Our government is not allowed to violate those rights and if they do, they can technically be held accountable. The government can do shady things to outsiders within the constraints of the Constitution.
As long as our government is honoring the Constitution, we have some hope of fixing its problems/flaws. If they decide they don't need to honor the Constitution, we have little hope of doing so...
I'm not seeing "citizens" or "non-citizens" in any of these contexts.
What I do see is: "Congress shall make no law", "right of the people", "consent of owner", and likewise.
It's an unpopular view of the Bill of Rights, but shouldn't these rights be extended to everyone, and not merely "citizens"? Cause I'm certainly not seeing that word anywhere in there.
In particular, the Supreme Court of the US gets to vote on what the Constitution means. And that sometimes yields non-intuitive interpretations of the plainly apparent reading of the rights amendments.
For instance, the 4th Amendment would seem to indicate that the US cannot spy on foreigners without a warrant. Only two justices had the stones to confirm that. The majority voted that interpreting the amendment as written would make it too difficult for the US to gather foreign intelligence. They literally voted that extending basic human rights to everyone would be too inconvenient.
It doesn't matter if the original intent was to protect everybody, rather than just citizens, when those tasked with judging cases may be swayed by political expedience.
It is my opinion that reading the US Constitution should be sufficient to understand the entire foundation of US law, rather than also being forced to study several centuries of judicial precedent under Anglo-American Common Law. As an American, I want the US government to get a warrant before conducting a search, on anyone, anywhere. I don't particularly care whether they are citizens, because I don't want the US agent to be an asshole when supposedly representing and defending my interests.
I believe "the people" is interpreted to mean the citizens of the United States. There are a lot of subtleties to the constitution and how our laws work.
"Congress shall make no law" meant the laws that Congress gets to pass, which are laws that apply within the United States. Congress doesn't get to pass laws that apply to foreign countries. ("Laws" here are distinct from "treaties".)
"People" meant citizens, not foreigners, even though I cannot think of any place where that is explicitly stated. It's pretty clearly implied, though, when you say "right of the people". What people does the Constitution give rights to? The people of the US, not the people of any other country.
There's still this thing called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". The United States voted for it in 1948.
And does it have any teeth? What happens when governments break it?
At least in the United States there's a clear solution to the American government breaking the constitution, and that's an armed revolt as a last resort and a finally new government (but not necessarily new constitution).
I'm absolutely not suggesting Americans do this. it's a just a consequence outlined both in history and the constitution.
Agreed, but tossaway's point hold some merit. If the people in this country aren't playing by the rules they've agreed to, it's going to be more difficult to get them to agree to new rules.
I agree. In fact I would say these words mean any living person regardless of nationality (though the courts would disagree with me):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Some parts of the Constitution apply to non-citizens, some parts don't. For example, the 14th Amendment makes a distinction on this point--note the use of "citizens" vs. "any person":
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The problem is not adherence to some constitution (especially the American constitution which contains quite some arbitrary and outdated things), but basic human rights. A constitution can be a legal framework for basic human rights, but many are pretty bad at that and the US has actively decided to not honor human rights (not accepting rulings of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, etc.)
What things are outdated? It's a document that outlines the principles of separation of powers and the role of government.
I think it is still very much relevant. Even if it was rewritten how would it be improved? Wouldn't we end up with the same principles just maybe worded differently?
The whole voting system for instance. With telecommunication better systems became feasible, and systems that also guarantee proportional representation like MMP [1] were devised.
There are several references to things that don't really apply anymore today. No matter how you might stand on the issue of the right to bear arms, the reference to militias doesn't really fit into the context of today's times.
As long as our government is honoring the Constitution, we have some hope of fixing its problems/flaws. If they decide they don't need to honor the Constitution, we have little hope of doing so...