Canadians launch U.S. constitutional challenge against ‘alien gag law’

[SidDithers]

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/972514--canadians-launch-u-s-constitutional-challenge-against-alien-gag-law?bn=1

A 26-year-old Canadian whiz kid who studied at Harvard Law School and clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is fighting an American law that prohibits foreigners living there from contributing to political campaigns.

Yaakov Roth, a lawyer with the firm Jones Day in Washington, has filed a case against the Federal Election Commission, arguing that denying non-permanent residents the right to spend money on political campaigns violates their freedom of speech.

Roth, who is originally from Toronto, and his co-counsel Warren Postman represent two Canadians who live and work in New York City.

Benjamin Bluman, 26, a progressive lawyer from Vancouver, wants to make financial contributions to three political campaigns, including President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. Asenath Steiman, 26, a conservative doctor from Toronto working at a New York hospital, would like to support Obama’s Republican opponent and contribute to the Club for Growth, an organization for fiscal conservatives.

They're saying that landed aliens are entitled to freedom of speech, and contributions to political campaigns are a form of speech. Interesting.

Sid

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Um

I write this as a woman who just got engaged to a green card holder from Italy. :-)

The Constitution only applies to U.S. Citizens right? This has been part of my frustration with GITMO. . . .They aren't being treated in the same an American would be - in a court of law of their peers.

So if the folks being held in gitmo don't get the full benes of citizenship - then I can't agree with this guy's freedom of speech being impeded . . . If he is not a citizen either.

[atreides1]

3. Agreed

[zerox]

12. This is completely incorrect.

The right wing loves this little fallacy that the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, only applies to US Citizens. It's totally false. The Constitution actually defines the powers and limitations of the US Federal Government, and therefore anyone in territory administered by the Government is afforded constitutional protections.

In the case of Guantanamo, the US has argued both that Guantanamo is not US soil and that the detainees are illegal enemy combatants in a war and for these reasons are somehow not held under the authority of the US legal system.

As unreasonable as his argument sounds, the kid in the case mentioned here knows what he is doing.

[Drale]

2. I dont want to sound callous

But why would someone who is not a citizen have rights under our constitution and if that law is thrown down it is over America will be to far gone to save.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. not callous at all

Fair question. Hell - American Citizens don't really get to use our freedom of speech.

[pampango]

6. Doesn't the Bill of Rights apply to everyone in the US, not just citizens?

If so, everyone here has the same rights. We can't just arrest foreigners here in the US and throw away the key. ( Well, not unless they are "Muslim terrorists" anyway. ;) ) Or arrest foreigner peaceful protesters and jail them indefinitely.

This should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision.

If our conservative SC can give corporations the same "free speech" right to donate to campaigns as real American citizens, they will have to tie themselves into a knot in order to justify how corporations can donate, but not resident foreigners. What corporations are actual citizens now? (Will they be able to vote next?) So they can donate but not foreigners who live here? What if a corporation has a majority of foreign nationals on its board of directors or a majority of the stock is owned by foreigners, can it still donate?

Ahhh, the unintended (?) consequences of a RW court permitting corporate donations. :)

[northoftheborder]

8. Yes, you make an interesting point, that might have unknown consequences.........

Hmmmmm.

[SidDithers]

13. That's what I thought...nt

Sid

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I think the argument will be that freedom of speech is a human right and not

a right granted by citizenship


They are not trying to vote, just trying to have their voice heard.

Anything and everything this country has ever done to promote freedom of speech as a basic right that everyone in the world is entitled too will be used as evidence on their behalf.

[Ikonoklast]

5. Good Luck With That.

Joes Day sucks, anyway.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. This + Citizens United = Disaster

We won't just be fighting money from American corporations, we will be fighting every corporation in the world.



I hope this fails.

[mmonk]

10. They are under the misimpression that people's contributions matter.

Corporations are the only "citizens" who's contributions affect elections. This is a corporate dictatorship, not some sort of democratic republic.

[Kolesar]

11. This concept will overload the brains of the border minutemen/white-supremist set...eom