Ted Cruz to Eric Holder: Yes or no, is it constitutional to use drones on U.S. soil against someone who’s not posing an immediate threat?

posted at 1:41 pm on March 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

A must-see via Mediaite, not just because this is the right question to ask after Holder’s letter on drone policy yesterday but because it fell to Cruz, the new bete noire of the left, rather than a Democrat to press the civil-libertarian case. Simple question: Is it a violation of due process to fire a missile at a guy on American soil if he’s not engaged at the moment in carrying out a terrorist attack? He might be a member of Al Qaeda; he might be planning an attack; but if he’s strolling down Main Street in some American town, is there any constitutional justification to toss a Hellfire at him rather than send the cops in to pick him up? Watch Holder’s reaction. Cruz has to browbeat him for three minutes to get him to shift from saying it wouldn’t be “appropriate” — which implies that the government might have the power to do it but would refuse to exercise that power for prudential reasons — to finally saying that, constitutionally, it doesn’t have that power. That’s an important admission; unless I missed something, it’s the first time anyone at the top has acknowledged a legal limit to drone strikes under certain circumstances. Here’s hoping we don’t have to point back to it someday.

As Ed already mentioned, Rand Paul’s been engaged in an old-fashioned talk-til-you-drop filibuster on the Senate floor for more than an hour to protest O’s refusal to rule out drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil. A few choice quotes, first from the Examiner:

“Barack Obama, in 2007, would be down here with me arguing against this,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “It amazes me and disappoints me how much he’s changed.”

More from Breitbart:

“If there was an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by many other Senators,” Sen. Paul said. “Would you tolerate a Republican who said I like the first amendment, I don’t plan to violate the first amendment, but I might,” he asked rhetorically. He then turned the question around and asked if Republicans would tolerate that sort of vaguery with regard to the 2nd amendment.

As of 1 p.m. ET, he’s live on C-SPAN 2. (You can watch here.) It’s a clever tactic twice over: While Holder’s already admitted that the feds can’t kill you at a cafe, he’s putting the Lightbringer on the spot to formally admit it too. Even if O refuses, the media attention caused by this stunt will highlight for liberals the fact that the anti-Bush they thought they elected in 2008 is a lot more Cheney-esque than they thought. (Then again, many Democrats have long since stopped caring about that.) It’s clever too because Paul needs to make amends to libertarians and paleocons for voting twice to filibuster Chuck Hagel. This is his way of reminding them ostentatiously that he’s still his father’s son.

Exit question: Why is Paul limiting his objection to killing Americans on American soil? Would he tolerate the feds firing a missile at a foreign national sitting in a U.S. cafe? Or have I misunderstood and he’s not actually limiting his objection that way?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

OT:

State’s main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied

“Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, the state’s most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position.”

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Turns out Cruz was an excellent choice to back. Go Cruz!!!

Bmore on March 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM

…Rove was wrong…again!

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2013 at 3:02 PM

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Even Germans saboteurs caught on American soil were entitled to de minimis due process rights in a military tribunal and a right of appeal to the Supreme Court before they were executed.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM

dont cherry pick, he had apost of several paragraphs. you take one out context and fisk it.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Dude, I said that I was sorry. Would you like a pint of blood, too?

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM

The only thing that should matter with regards to the ending of a life on US soil is the justification for doing so. The method used, be it a Police officer (with a pistol, shotgun, or rife), a citizen, or a drone flying above, should not matter.

We need to back away from the bogyman fears of the method and concentrate on the justification.

SpudmanWP on March 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Um, did I miss something in US history class? Did an American on American soil plan the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Fallon on March 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Those sneaky American Germans!

LoganSix on March 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I think you missed the sarc tag in Fallon’s post.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Maybe Holder should read Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Although we certainly are called rebellious by the LSM, there is neither rebellion or an invasion, at this moment in time. Why has this administration been so destructive of our liberties.

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You and I are in agreement. Others need to understand that they are incorrect when they argue that foreign nationals on American soil do not have constitutional rights. That is an erroneous position and can be demonstrably proven so by mountains of precedent.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

It’s too simplistic to say foreign nationals on American soil do have constitutional rights–yes, they do, but only to a certain point. Piers Morgan case in point. Yes, he has a “first amendment right” to say certain things, but the government can also deport him for saying those things. So his “rights” do have limits as he is a guest of the United States. Not the same as the rights we as citizens have.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

No, it doesn’t. Research wartime actions taken against non-citizens on U.S. soil who were engaged in planning acts of sabotage, terrorism, etc.

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 2:58 PM

There’s a difference between what our government has done or currently does versus what it is supposed to be able to do according to the Constitution. Just because the government has previously violated the Constitution, does not change what the Constitution says and what it’s supposed to mean.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:17 PM

They need to stop vacillating between U.S. citizen noncombatant and noncitizen noncombatant.

Christien on March 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Knowing the Chicago way, one would half to ask if we can expect that any such strikes upon less threatening folks would also involve mysterious conspiracy letters planted..er..found on their charred remains…

Don L on March 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM

And, I don’t believe that I argued otherwise. As I said, foreign nationals have constitutional rights – not the full panoply – when on American soil and I point you to the statement of Senator Edward Cowan – the colleague of the author of the 14th amendment – made during debate:

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I was agreeing with your counter to William Eaton – and adding an example in support of that point.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s too simplistic to say foreign nationals on American soil do have constitutional rights–yes, they do, but only to a certain point. Piers Morgan case in point.

Yes, he has a “first amendment right” to say certain things, but the government can also deport him for saying those things.

So his “rights” do have limits as he is a guest of the United States. Not the same as the rights we as citizens have.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Can the government deport a person for non-criminal speech? I believe the government has discretion over issuing of Visas and can decline to renew his, but I don’t believe the government can simply deport a person over what they say.

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unequivocal: no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” No amount of ducking and diving will evade the inescapable fact that, for the first time, U.S. military officials in an aggressive overreach of constitutional authority deliberately targeted an American citizen for killing. And no amount of legalistic wordplay will alter the reality that al-Awlaki was denied due process

Now BHO is bringing it to those of us here at home. Due process HAH. The NDAA bill that was passed by Boehner and Reid says that they can do whatever they want. Due process be damned!

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s too simplistic to say foreign nationals on American soil do have constitutional rights–yes, they do, but only to a certain point. Piers Morgan case in point. Yes, he has a “first amendment right” to say certain things, but the government can also deport him for saying those things. So his “rights” do have limits as he is a guest of the United States. Not the same as the rights we as citizens have.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Please point out where I have said that foreign nationals have the full panoply of constitutional rights possessed by American citizens. As a naturalised American, I am quite familiar with the difference.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM

So his “rights” do have limits as he is a guest of the United States. Not the same as the rights we as citizens have.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM

And a non-citizen rights aren’t limited. They do have a limited amount of rights. There’s a difference.

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM

That is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether the government – and it should encompass ANY LEVEL – can summarily execute a citizen (or even an individual) on American soil – at any time, in any place, with or without actionable intelligence, whether or not imminent means immediate or at some point…maybe…in the future – on people they think might be planning an attack.

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM


This is a true story from a first person witness with details I checked through other sources.

Nuclear weapon storage facilities are very secure locations with very strict security procedures. The “stop and be identified” requirement for these facilities had a standing “shoot to kill” order for the security personnel.

Every rule has some a$$hole who thinks it does not apply to him/her.

One day, an admiral who was late for an important meeting inside one of these facilities which he visisted on a regular basis decided he did not have time to “stop and be identified” and rolled right past the checkpoint which a lax guard had left the swing arm up on too long after a vehicle had been just passed through.

One of the guards stepped into the road and put two rounds from his .45 through the back window of the car passing by the admiral.

The guard faced a disciplinary action – for failing to hit the admiral with his shots. Given his training & qualification scoring, it was not deemed credible that he had missed by accident but rather that he had intentionally put his shots wide.

The admiral was court martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Navy.

There are facilities and secrets we kill to protect.

I DO NOT agree with the use of drones to kill American citizens inside the United States – but that is based on the SCOAMF administration’s track record of laziness and the fact there are more discreet methods of taking action. If you believe no American President prior to Obama has had an American citizen inside the United States summarily executed in the interests of national security, you would be wrong.

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Wait, now Cruz says rights that “every man, woman, and child” enjoys. Make up your mind. Are we talking about rights just for U.S. citizens or for “No person” mentioned specifically in the first two words of the Fifth Amendment?

Christien on March 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I think Holder and Obama are just playing games with this whole drone constitutionality issue as a distraction. They are happy to perpetuate the Republicans uneasiness on this position just for the pure entertainment value they get from it when they’re behind closed doors.

Aplombed on March 6, 2013 at 3:26 PM

But we don’t assassinate foreigners on American soil. The CIA doesn’t work on American soil and that is the main agency that is supposed to handle assassinations.

But the minute they leave our territory, the CIA is supposed to dust them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 1:58 PM

You don’t completely understand the purview of the CIA. The Agency can – and does – operate within the USA. Supposedly within “strict” limitations…but those are somewhat “flexible”.

Solaratov on March 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unequivocal: no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” No amount of ducking and diving will evade the inescapable fact that, for the first time, U.S. military officials in an aggressive overreach of constitutional authority deliberately targeted an American citizen for killing. And no amount of legalistic wordplay will alter the reality that al-Awlaki was denied due process

Now BHO is bringing it to those of us here at home. Due process HAH. The NDAA bill that was passed by Boehner and Reid says that they can do whatever they want. Due process be damned!

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

If you’re going to talk “unequivocal” I suggest referring to that actual wording of the 5th Amandement. It doesn’t say “American” or even “citizen” – it says “person”. The distinction of those words is very specific in their uses throughout the Constitution.

Article [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Restricting this to “drones” seems kind of limiting. It’s not like it would be OK if it was an F-16, a helicopter gunship, or just a sniper with a rifle. Targeted killings are for enemies (including outlaw UC citizens) that are not operationally cost effective to capture, not for people that it would be politically inconvenient to capture.

Count to 10 on March 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I think a Dung Beetle would pass on Holder. Standards.

slickwillie2001 on March 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM

It must be nice to be ideologically pure.

Solaratov on March 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Resist We Much on March 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM

The FBI is not releasing info demanded by Zimmerman’s lawyers.

Schadenfreude on March 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

There are several stories along this line across the military. I heard a similar one about General LeMay doing that on a visit to a SAC base – and awarded a commendation to the airman who shot his car when the General’s driver ran the gate 9on his order to test base security).

I personally saw an incident in Cheyenne Mountain back in the 80s (deadly force authorized area). A female Navy LT failed to show up for the mid shift to relieve my crew. When we got out to the blast doors, an airman security cop had her face down on the pavement with an M-16 to the back of her head. He had told her cse couldn’t proceed inside because her badge was not readable, and she started arguing and tried to get him to back down – officer to enlisted style. He did what he was trained to do – and held her there until they got a female MP up from fort carson to frisk her. I was kind of surprised to see her about 10 years later still in the Navy and up to O-5.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

On Cruz, Lee, Rand Paul etal in the Senate and the House members who get it.

They and we must attack the commie Democrat party lies 24/7 from now on.

Never let up, attack, counter attack, ambush they and the Goebble News Networks national and local.

Keep them on the defense as much as possible, keep them off guard, make U.S. a moving target. Not like the Republican establishement just sitting ducks on a pond.

Here on blogs at each and every town hall meeting possible.

Find new ways.

Just do not let up.

Ted etal are going to need out help.

Once the GNN goes after him and they will like a pack of rabid wolves.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

We don’t sanction the use of government hit squads to assassinate U.S. citizens who are responsible for the most unspeakable crimes. We don’t do it even when they admit to those crimes. Instead we invoke the moral authority of the Constitution to insist on their right to due process, even in cases where the accused is unwilling to offer any defense. Only when due process has been exhausted and the accused is found guilty do we have the moral authority to invoke the death sentence.

The reason for this important Constitutional safeguard is self-evident. In the words of Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU:

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent. It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

I also despise the ACLU for most of it’s back-handed manipulation of others. Needless to say they can, sometimes be right, on occasion.

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Agreed. I wasn’t really disputing your point – except maybe for the “American” part – just making the point more specifically that much of the Constitution applies to everyone in the US and not just legal citizens.
There are rights specified to “citizens” and there are rights that apply to “people” or “person”. I believe the specific choice of those words was intentional and specific.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.

Try this on them.

Mr. Holder, on the off chance say the terrorist who shot all those people down at Ft. Hood Texas, he escapes, he is at a known location would you have a drone take him out?

If not why.

If so, maybe we the people may just go sping him, get him to a hide out here in the U.S. A. with a bunch of other islamic terroist and let you and Obama take care of that for U.S.. Could we depend on you?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

The base starting point is.

Obama is a liar.
Holder is a liar.
The Democrat Party is 100% lie based, the foundation they poured for years now , it has set up, all lies.

Any thing they say or do is lie based.

No good to talk with them, question them.

Defeat them.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

If you believe no American President prior to Obama has had an American citizen inside the United States summarily executed in the interests of national security, you would be wrong.

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Absolutely true. It’s been going on for a long, long time.

There have been, are and always will be organizations which do not appear on any tables of government entities…staffed by those whose job is to fight unseen wars in complete secrecy; and, oftentimes, to die unknown, unsung, unmourned by those for whom they fought.

Solaratov on March 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM

making the point more specifically that much of the Constitution applies to everyone in the US and not just legal citizens.
dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Agreed, My point is that this or any other administration does not have the right to issue the constitutional illegality of a death sentence issued by government fiat. Whether here or abroad.

But, by doing so abroad, he not only deprived Awlaki of his constitutional rights. He is now trying to implement the same on Americans here at home.

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I don’t know if anyone has asked this already, but what about collateral damage? How much collateral damage is acceptable for drone strikes on US soil?

codewhisperer on March 6, 2013 at 4:08 PM

This is outstanding..Hat tip to Rand Paul..:)

Dire Straits on March 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM

This points out the problem with the Patriot Act..We are going way past phone tapping..:(

Dire Straits on March 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM

codewhisper,

Depends on if its you or me.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Wow, Cruz kicked Holder’s butt. Awesome.

UltimateBob on March 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Currently, there is not much controversy over the killing of someone like al-Awlaki, but what will restrain someone like Obama in the future? Certainly, his high rhetoric on military ethics(sarc) which, apparently applies only to George Bush, will not. What happens when his secret panel recommends someone for targeting whose assassination might be considered a little more questionable?

We have to ask ourselves a basic question, why should the U.S. Constitution restrain The Chicago Thug in Chief? The non-vetted president was shown from the beginning that the outdated presidential eligibility clause didn’t apply to him. If one constitutional clause is irrelevant, why not others?

WV. Paul on March 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM

SO what about political opponents? Deem them as a threat. Take them out? There absolutely cannot be unchecked murder of anyone of U.S. soil. They’d better be prepared to answer to killing someone.

Right now here in Maryland they are appealing the death penalty. We now will have criminals not afraid of murder. What is this world coming to?

johnnyU on March 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Dire Straits on March 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Dire Straits on March 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Sorry wrong thread..:)

PS..Great job by Ted Cruz to go after Eric Holder..:)

Dire Straits on March 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM

dont cherry pick, he had apost of several paragraphs. you take one out context and fisk it.

chasdal on March 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM

It’s okay. No harm. I did the same thing to allah in this thread and RWM was just reiterating the point you and I were making, anyway.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

SO what about political opponents? Deem them as a threat. Take them out? There absolutely cannot be unchecked murder of anyone of U.S. soil. They’d better be prepared to answer to killing someone.

johnnyU on March 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Someone had better be careful.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/obama-goes-around-gop-leaders-calls-rank-and-file-republicans-for-dinner/
Obama inviting the GOP for dinner, ehhhh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe
In the case of the Campbells and MacDonalds, it was the guests who killed the hosts – but that story, and his impunity on violating the law so far could have given McBarky ideas….

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM

You don’t completely understand the purview of the CIA. The Agency can – and does – operate within the USA. Supposedly within “strict” limitations…but those are somewhat “flexible”.

Solaratov on March 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Well, of course the CIA operates on American soil – their main offices are on American soil. The point I was making was about their real work which is mostly restricted to foreign soil, where they are supposed to be violating the local laws and doing all the sort of stuff that cannot be done on our soil. That’s their real purpose. Their espionage on American soil is generally restricted to aliens and doesn’t include the activities they carry out overseas.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM

If you’re going to talk “unequivocal” I suggest referring to that actual wording of the 5th Amandement. It doesn’t say “American” or even “citizen” – it says “person”. The distinction of those words is very specific in their uses throughout the Constitution.

Article [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Ha ha. If you’re going to be that precise with wording, we might as well re-open the discussion of Obama’s eligibility.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM

This is a true story from a first person witness with details I checked through other sources.

Nuclear weapon storage facilities are very secure locations with very strict security procedures. The “stop and be identified” requirement for these facilities had a standing “shoot to kill” order for the security personnel.

Every rule has some a$$hole who thinks it does not apply to him/her.

One day, an admiral who was late for an important meeting inside one of these facilities which he visisted on a regular basis decided he did not have time to “stop and be identified” and rolled right past the checkpoint which a lax guard had left the swing arm up on too long after a vehicle had been just passed through.

One of the guards stepped into the road and put two rounds from his .45 through the back window of the car passing by the admiral.

The guard faced a disciplinary action – for failing to hit the admiral with his shots. Given his training & qualification scoring, it was not deemed credible that he had missed by accident but rather that he had intentionally put his shots wide.

The admiral was court martialed and dishonorably discharged from the Navy.

There are facilities and secrets we kill to protect.

I DO NOT agree with the use of drones to kill American citizens inside the United States – but that is based on the SCOAMF administration’s track record of laziness and the fact there are more discreet methods of taking action. If you believe no American President prior to Obama has had an American citizen inside the United States summarily executed in the interests of national security, you would be wrong.

PolAgnostic on March 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

That’s all fine and dandy, but it’s already well-established that military personnel do not have the same rights as civilians. Hence the argument about whether to use military tribunals or civilian courts for certain “man-made disasters”.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Can the government deport a person for non-criminal speech? I believe the government has discretion over issuing of Visas and can decline to renew his, but I don’t believe the government can simply deport a person over what they say.

segasagez on March 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You’re missing the point of the visa–that person is a guest at the pleasure of the DoS. They can be deported for whatever reason the Feds can come up with. When the Morgan flap and WH petition for his deportation was gathering steam, there were several articles about SCOTUS precedent for deporting visa holders for speech/actions.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM

“If there was an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by many other Senators,” Sen. Paul said.

Wow.

Bishop on March 6, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Ha ha. If you’re going to be that precise with wording, we might as well re-open the discussion of Obama’s eligibility.

Nutstuyu on March 6, 2013 at 5:21 PM

I’d be ok with that. But since that’s not going to happen, I say we go straight to the trial for treason and his various other criminal activities, like F&F.

But the specific words used DO make a difference. You might note that throughout the Constitution and Amendments, there is no refence at all to “Americans”. There are specific uses of the words “the people”, “person” (as in “no person shall be…”), “soldier”, “the Government”,”the States”, and “the United States”. I believe each use is very deliberate.

dentarthurdent on March 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I don’t know about you, but I am hungry for this type of representation.

Ted Cruz, too.

Saltysam on March 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM

HOLDER=JAIL

CRUZ MISSILES INCOMING! =)

TX-96 on March 6, 2013 at 7:39 PM

You know, I don’t think that Holder is a villain. I think he’s just stupid. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

eyesights on March 7, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2