Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
Yes, serious people are really making that argument.
> It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to.
I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
> The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government
> The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship
> The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability
> Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad
Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?
