Well... i would argue this
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In the preamble, the constitution states We the People of the united states, so from that point on, i would assume all times it states "people" it states the people of the united states... and it isn't a hard jump to the people of the united states being citizens.
And that will be my foray into constitutional interpretation until i take a class or so.
Please don't call me a dumbass...
I've heard the argument before. I won't call you a dumbass so long as you wish to learn about it. My response is that the preamble is a statement of purpose and does not hold any force of law, it is the articles that come after that do. Also the first quote I mentioned:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,
Does it make any sense that "person" in that sentence means citizens, when it clearly states no person except for citizens?
That is not the only example either, it is established over and over again that citizens are a subset of people. Take the 14th amendment example which I gave above as well. But there is also this in article IV:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Why would they use citizen in the first clause, then person in the second clause? Do you really think that is just a mistake?
It's plainly obvious that they are deliberate in their use of those two words. By the way, not even the Bush administration argued that people within our jurisdiction do not have any constitutional protections. That is why they kept foreign prisoners of war in GITMO, so they could claim they did not have to give them habeas corpus rights because they were not on U.S. soil. They, like everybody agreed that if they are on U.S. soil, they are afforded the protections in the constitution like everybody else. Such as due process and free speech. They are NOT afforded the priviledges and immunities, such as voting, or running for office that are reserved only for citizens.
Think of the preamble as a statement of what the founders wished for the constitution to accomplish. If it actually had force of law, there would be no need for the following articles at all, they could justify any law or government action as being presuant of that purpose. The following articles are the powers and restrictions enumerated in order to accomplish that purpose.