you could not be more wrong - it is for the constraint of government, but only the AMERICAN GOVT VIS A VIS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have?
Ah, so when the Sixth Amendment says in all criminal prosecutions
it really means if the accused is a Citizen
? Or No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
it really means no citizen
?
I suppose the Natural Born Citizen requirement doesn't apply to non-citizens either, in your model, because the Constitution's constraints only apply WRT Citizens.
(That would, in a certain way, explain why no-one has legal standing in Obama's NBC cases.)
In any case, your view of things has an absolutely terrible loophole: there are actions which the government says terminate your citizenship, if this is of unconstrained scope it could be expanded so that it is very easy to lose your citizenship and, after that, deny you all the [legal] protections you had by virtue of your citizenship.
What kind of liberal bullsh-t education do you have?
I'm a computer programmer; CS is one of the fields that's largely insulated from liberal bullshit
in education.
I deal with assertions and logical reasoning every day, when a parameter is said to be positive I take that to mean that it is greater than zero; likewise, when a legal document says something like no person
, congress shall pass no law restricting […]
, or no X Law shall be passed
that such actually apply.