FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Stormwarden on January 07, 2012, 09:42:22 pm
-
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/
Admittedly, I'm not sure about the reliability of the source. According to it, this bill was proposed by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). It would grant the nation power to strip citizenship of anyone in the US without a conviction of being "hostile" according to the article. I heard there was mention of due process in the comments, but it isn't by the same standards of criminal trial. It is by "preponderance of the evidence."
Now, if this isn't a reliable source, I apologize now. But if not, let's all think about this in combination with the NDAA.
-
Might as well move to Canada if we're not allowed to be American citizens in the first place.
-
I see we have another reason to hate Lieberman
-
^You act like we need a reason in the first place. He's definitely provided no lack of reasons.
That said, I'm more than a little alarmed with this POS bill. Citizenship revocation, if it must be implemented, must require far more than "preponderance."
-
The great thing is if they do it, it's not like they did anything to a citizen. Of any country!
-
Obama said he would never use NDAA on an American citizen and then this comes along. Way to fucking lawyer civil liberties.
Dammit!!
-
Because this really worries me I looked it up to see what else there is on it. From what I can tell it has been introduced, but has not passed the house or the senate. (link (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3166/show)) Full text of the short thing can also be found here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166). This was also proposed back in October, long before Obama talked about not applying NDAA to American citizens.
-
Thanks, Oriet. It's definitely a cause for concern.
-
Well, there goes Obama's attempts to choose the lesser of two evils.
Instead we get the lesser of two evils, and now another evil approaches that, when combined, make it back to the greater evil again.
-
If you get stripped of your citizenship, what happens? Are you deported and if so, to where?
-
If you get stripped of your citizenship, what happens? Are you deported and if so, to where?
I would guess to either Guantanamo or the country they were assisting (or from where whichever group was assisted resides).
-
I'd suspect Guantanamo or some other form of military holding. Probably the government would only revoke citizenship for someone suspected of terrorism, or ties to terrorists. In which case all that bullshit holding people without charge(s), holding them incommunicado, etc can kick in.
-
Oh, hey, it's (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html) unconstitutional (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001483----000-.html).
-
Then if it gets passed hopefully the Supreme Court will strike it down.
-
How would the Supreme Court ever see it? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic. If John Doe is arrested and sent to Guantanomo(sp?), as a non-citizen, with no right to trial, to an attorney, to anything, he'll never appear in a court, there will be no appeals, nothing. Doesn't there have to be a trial before it can be appealed to a higher court?
-
How would the Supreme Court ever see it? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic. If John Doe is arrested and sent to Guantanomo(sp?), as a non-citizen, with no right to trial, to an attorney, to anything, he'll never appear in a court, there will be no appeals, nothing. Doesn't there have to be a trial before it can be appealed to a higher court?
Good point, which is actually incredibly worrisome.
-
It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that could be allowed in a democracy.
-
How would the Supreme Court ever see it? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be sarcastic. If John Doe is arrested and sent to Guantanomo(sp?), as a non-citizen, with no right to trial, to an attorney, to anything, he'll never appear in a court, there will be no appeals, nothing. Doesn't there have to be a trial before it can be appealed to a higher court?
I would imagine that family of the ex-citizen could make an appeal, though they would likely have to prove what happened to them somehow.
I'm actually of the opinion that a newly passed law should go through the Supreme Court to ensure it is constitutional before it can be enacted, exactly for this sort of situation. I know such would never pass the house or congress, though.
-
I see we have another reason to hate Lieberman
Honest question, is this the same Lieberman that declared Postal2 would teach and encourage people to go out and shoot up their communities?
If so, how the fuck is this guy still in office?
-
I'm actually of the opinion that a newly passed law should go through the Supreme Court to ensure it is constitutional before it can be enacted, exactly for this sort of situation.
Same here. What’s the point of a Constitution barring certain laws if those laws can take effect and ruin peoples’ lives before the law is actually struck down?
I am also thinking that Congresspeople that vote to pass blatantly unconstitutional tripe such as this should face stiff penalties, if not outright removal from office. A legislator that can’t even be bothered to know the basic laws of his or her jurisdiction has no business being a legislator.
-
The only issue I see with sending laws to the Supreme Court is the logistics of such a task. However, having a panel of judges review laws independently is something I see as more feasible and it would produce similar results.
-
Yeah, that would have to be the way of doing it. But can’t you already hear the Repubs screaming about expanding government and promoting judicial activism?