CRUZ MISSILES INCOMING! =)

Ted Cruz, too.

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.

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

Wow.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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….

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.

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..:)

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?

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?

Depends on if its you or me.