What will happen with the extraterritorial constitution?
Despite the musty origins of much of the doctrine I have described, the issue of the geographical reach of the Constitution is not arcane. In a globalizing world, the United States frequently acts abroad. FBI agents interrogate suspects in Africa; U.S. drug officers collaborate with colleagues in Mexico; and antitrust officials prosecute cartels in Europe. As the war on terror makes clear, the United States will act abroad — even rule abroad –when necessary. The increasing prevalence of these situations ought to make us rethink the constitutional significance of territory. In particular, the notion that the U.S.– which prides itself on the rule of law — can act unfettered by any constitutional consideration simply because it acts extraterritorially is in tension with the core principles of limited government that our nation was founded upon. Rethinking the role of territory in the law is not easy, but a few considerations are germane. Some issues are relatively straightforward. U.S
