And wasn’t Congress given all authority to pass and enforce laws on its forts, enclaves, and territories; laws that are more restrictive than those for the citizens of the states? Laws which need not be in accord with the Bill of Rights (think Guantanamo)?

I believe this is so. And I further believe that almost every state citizen has signed multiple legal documents saying that he/she is a U.S. employee, and that he/she is within the jurisdiction of the U.S.

How can you ask for Congress to be “set right” when they have been following the Constitution, to the letter?

How did we go from regulating ELECTIONS to regulating campaign contributions?

I believe this is the number one reason why the constitution gets distorted because people want the ruling to be inline with what they think is justice and not what is actually written.

There is confusion among “constitutionalists” about what is a citizen and what is not. I submit that there are actually two citizenships:

1. The citizen/person/resident of the United States–which can be a corporation, a resident of a U.S. territory, and even a dual citizen of another country. This is NOT the same thing as

2. “We, the People” a citizen of one of the compact states.

Look at the statutes. All statutes affecting the U.S. franchisee “citizen” begin with the words “subject to the jurisdiction”. The tradition of the Constitution and original Bill of Rights NEVER gave the federal government jurisdiction of the state citizen. Show me one clause!

Viewed another way, whenever someone talks about “constitutional rights” they are speaking of the 14th amendment “subject to the jurisdiction franchise citizen”. Citizens of the state, the “We, the People”, have these rights innately. If they would only understand what they have!

Getting back to this article about freedom of speech, the U.S. franchise “citizen” will argue that the First Amendment gives him/her the right to speak. Read it again, it plainly doesn’t. They are actually invoking the 14th Amendment as one “subject to the jurisdiction”. And further they are asking for this franchise to be applied to the state, of which they are not a part. That is why the state terms them “residents” and not citizens. See?

As corporations can be significantly foreign-owned, does this ruling in effect give non-citizens enough influence over US elections that we should be concerned?

What YOU may think is RIGHT, is not always in line with the constitution.

For example, it's acceptable, under the constitution, for my home state to enact a socialist health-care plan, since such actions are reserved to the states or the people – but I don't think it's a good choice, and I think it's the wrong choice.

It seems that your comment comes from a place of distrust of corporations – which I think many in this country would agree with. But as far as the Constitutional questions, where do you believe Professor Natelson was unsound?

Could you cite something in particular?