The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land.
To be fair, neither have most of his modern predecessors, who have steadily expanded executive power far beyond its constitutional bounds. President George W. Bush was considered by the Left to be one of the worst enemies of civil liberties, as legislation such as the Patriot Act, policies such as indefinite detention, and legal redefinitions of torture were considered unprecedented new lows. Yet despite promising "change," Obama has maintained most of Bush's anti-civil liberties policies, even expanding them in some cases.
When American-born Al-Qaeda collaborator Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen last week, The New York Times noted,
"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."There is little question that al-Awlaki was as evil as most reports indicated. He inspired radical jihadists to take up arms against the United States. There is also little question that fighting radical Islamists represents a war unlike any other in our history, but the problem with killing al-Awlaki is the precedent it sets. If President Obama's overall domestic and foreign policies weren't already bad enough, he has now taken the United States to a new low by undermining the most basic precept of American law: the protection of a citizen's rights through due process.
"Where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime."
When the court decided the man must remain imprisoned, in his dissenting opinion Scalia quoted 18th century British judge Sir William Blackstone, widely considered to be an authority on English common law:
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly: 'Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper ... there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities ..."
"To bereave a man of life ... without accusation or trial ... would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom."We don't have to imagine what the Left would have thought of George W. Bush if he had ordered the assassination of al-Awlaki. But if Bush was rightly criticized for imprisoning citizens without due process, Obama is now applauded for killing one of them.
This issue is not about an obvious American traitor, but an American President's traitorous new policy.
"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials ... There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel ... Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate."
Obtaining Naturalization in a Foreign State
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
Briefly stated, these acts include:
(Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA); taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA); entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA); accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (Sec. 349 (a) (5) INA); formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
One could make the argument that the demonstrators occupying Wall Street are guilty of sedition and treason - they are openly calling for overthrowing the United States government in particular, and capitalism in general.
Answer: The intellectually and morally bankrupt left are hypocrites. The useful idiots in the streets are being manipulated by the very people who will ultimately enslave them.
Why aren't they protesting on their campuses about college presidents, professors, administrators, and head ball coaches making big money on the backs of students via inflated tuition rates?
Why aren't they protesting against the democrat politicians who federalized the student loan program, depriving local communities and banks the opportunity to decide who is worthy of assistance?
Why aren't they protesting against Apple, one of the largest, richest corporations in America - a company that has many of its products made in China, depriving Americans of manufacturing jobs?
Ignorance and hypocrisy go hand in hand. The "occupy" protesters are a fine testament to the abject failure of our educational system.