Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 112

Thread: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

  1. #41
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The country need not be at war with the US for the State department to revoke his citizenship.
    True, we need not be at war for some other sections of that statute to apply, except under the section of the US Code which states the conditions and standards on which citizenship may be revoked for serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;

    8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions:
    (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
    (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States

    What part of that don’t you get in order to say it is strictly a “peacetime” statute?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    If he were at war with the US the statute doesn't necessarily apply unless the President says it does.
    Please point out to me the so-called war-time statute which supports that assertion. You have yet to cite any laws, statutes, or even any part of the Constitution to back up your claims. Do so, or yield.

  2. #42
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Nope, I debunk you back. The Act isn't binding on the President in war time with regard to his functions as Commander in Chief. He may have the State Department deal with the issue of citizenship of a combatant at war with the US if he thinks it best, but he need not.
    The imperial presidency only exists in your mind, not in the law.

    From the Supreme Court decision Afroyim v. Rusk

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States...." There is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.

  3. #43
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    True, we need not be at war for some other sections of that statute to apply, except under the section of the US Code which states the conditions and standards on which citizenship may be revoked for serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;

    8 USC § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions:
    (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
    (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States

    What part of that don’t you get in order to say it is strictly a “peacetime” statute?



    Please point out to me the so-called war-time statute which supports that assertion. You have yet to cite any laws, statutes, or even any part of the Constitution to back up your claims. Do so, or yield.
    There's no such thing as a statute that can direct the President or restrict his actions in the conduct of war. See Separation of Powers. See President as Commander in Chief.

    See Federalist Papers # 25 to 28 or thereabouts. The sole means of control the Congress has on Presidential war powers is to restrict funding, and in the Federalist Papers that is regarded as the supreme authority! Do you see anything in the Constitution that says that the President is the Commander in Chief subject to the advice and consent of the Senate or some such? No, there is no qualification or limitation to that authority at all.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  4. #44
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The imperial presidency only exists in your mind, not in the law.

    From the Supreme Court decision Afroyim v. Rusk
    Again, this doesn't apply in wartime. It's not a wartime case.

    Here is the opinion from SCOTUS:

    Google Scholar

    The powers of the Commander in Chief are vestigial remnants of the powers of a monarch, the sole exception that the founders granted those who worried that not having a strong executive could turn out to be a big liability. And even then the Commander in Chief was limited to 2 years of funding after which his war making powers could be shut down in toto by Congress. Hardly "imperial" at all.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #45
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    Again, this doesn't apply in wartime. It's not a wartime case.
    A) Afroyim v. Rusk was in 1967. While lacking official an official declaration of war, it was as much "wartime" as it is today.
    B) The idea that supreme court rulings only apply in peacetime is complete and utter grade A horse **** that has zero basis in either law, logic, or sanity.

    The powers of the Commander in Chief are vestigial remnants of the powers of a monarch, the sole exception that the founders granted those who worried that not having a strong executive could turn out to be a big liability. And even then the Commander in Chief was limited to 2 years of funding after which his war making powers could be shut down in toto by Congress. Hardly "imperial" at all.
    The powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. Not become an all powerful dictator during the vaguely defined "wartime" who can dictate non-military affairs and ignore the constitution. Pretending the president is a monarch during war is little more than delusion.

  6. #46
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    There's no such thing as a statute that can direct the President or restrict his actions in the conduct of war. See Separation of Powers. See President as Commander in Chief.

    See Federalist Papers # 25 to 28 or thereabouts. The sole means of control the Congress has on Presidential war powers is to restrict funding, and in the Federalist Papers that is regarded as the supreme authority! Do you see anything in the Constitution that says that the President is the Commander in Chief subject to the advice and consent of the Senate or some such? No, there is no qualification or limitation to that authority at all.
    1) The federalist papers aren't law
    2) Nobody argues with executive supremacy with regards to commanding the army. The problem is your made-up argument that removing citizenship is somehow linked to military command.

    Deciding citizenship was a power granted to congress, as evidenced by the 1790 Naturalization Act. The 14th amendment added constitutional definitions. The executive branch doesn't have the power.

  7. #47
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    A) Afroyim v. Rusk was in 1967. While lacking official an official declaration of war, it was as much "wartime" as it is today.
    B) The idea that supreme court rulings only apply in peacetime is complete and utter grade A horse **** that has zero basis in either law, logic, or sanity.
    No, the issue is executive authority over war in wartime vs. ordinary executive authority. No, the Afroyim vs Rusk case was not an issue of executive authority over war matters. You seem to think that good Constitutional law is always "sane". That's naïve.

    Let me sum it up: In war the President is an absolute dictator ... until the money runs out.

    The powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. Not become an all powerful dictator during the vaguely defined "wartime" who can dictate non-military affairs and ignore the constitution. Pretending the president is a monarch during war is little more than delusion.
    You keep wanting limitations of ordinary executive authority to leak into wartime authority. It doesn't work. You say that the powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. He commands the whole military and everything that appends to that, and that says it all. He commands without oversight, without any second guessing. Without even the requirement to report to Congress. That's how it is in the Constitution, no use wishing it was different.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  8. #48
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    No, the issue is executive authority over war in wartime vs. ordinary executive authority. No, the Afroyim vs Rusk case was not an issue of executive authority over war matters. You seem to think that good Constitutional law is always "sane". That's naïve.

    Let me sum it up: In war the President is an absolute dictator ... until the money runs out.



    You keep wanting limitations of ordinary executive authority to leak into wartime authority. It doesn't work. You say that the powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. He commands the whole military and everything that appends to that, and that says it all. He commands without oversight, without any second guessing. Without even the requirement to report to Congress. That's how it is in the Constitution, no use wishing it was different.
    I've cited my legal claims in this thread, you have nothing to back up any of your fantasies. Show some proof that the mythical wartime powers you posit actually exist in law.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    No, the issue is executive authority over war in wartime vs. ordinary executive authority. No, the Afroyim vs Rusk case was not an issue of executive authority over war matters. You seem to think that good Constitutional law is always "sane". That's naïve.

    Let me sum it up: In war the President is an absolute dictator ... until the money runs out.



    You keep wanting limitations of ordinary executive authority to leak into wartime authority. It doesn't work. You say that the powers of the commander in chief are to command the army. He commands the whole military and everything that appends to that, and that says it all. He commands without oversight, without any second guessing. Without even the requirement to report to Congress. That's how it is in the Constitution, no use wishing it was different.
    Congress still needs to fund a war - isn't that why progressives were pissed during the Bush era? because our Congress - the same cats they voted into office to represent them overwhelmingly voted to fund Iraq and the rest of our games all over the planet? Oh yeah while Obama is doing the same and our Congress is authorizing the funding..

    The president can veto the spending bills if he wants to but those bills will just be sent back to congress where 3/5ths of the vote will override the presidents veto...

    POTUS is the most meaningless job...

  10. #50
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,572
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    I've cited my legal claims in this thread, you have nothing to back up any of your fantasies. Show some proof that the mythical wartime powers you posit actually exist in law.
    It's in Article 2 of the Constitution.

    Look around. The President is summarily killing Al Qaeda with missiles fired from drones. His response to Congress getting concerned about it was to stop telling them what he's up to.

    And yet some regard him as weak in his application of wartime powers:

    Obama's Legal Netherworld - By John Yoo and Robert Delahunty | Foreign Policy

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •