Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have taken the controversy over reading Faisal Shahzad his constitutional Miranda rights to the next level with their proposed amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Aside from the vague clause regarding "material support," to terrorist organizations, there must be a pause and a question of justice when the revocation of citizenship for a lawful U.S. citizen is considered.
14 years ago
Oh, Senator Brown. I am so happy that I am no longer a constituent of yours.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I find this to be extremely interesting. I don't recall Congress having the ability to strip a person of their citizenship. I find this bill to be completely unconstitutional as well as irrational. I agree completely that citizens should be held accountable for their actions, but stripping them of their citizenship is completely unnecessary. I find that it is another example of government trying to extend its authority by limiting justice. I also wanted to bring to attention that the case that the article is referring to by saying, "The court has ruled in the past that someone performing one of the triggering acts must clearly intend to renounce his citizenship." is Vance v. Terrazas. This particular case influenced the aftermath of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. When Hamdi renounced his citizenship, it is unclear if it was influenced by the deportation back to Saudi Arabia and the condition to never return back to the US.
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), is a good case to reference here. If you're interested in reading the actual Supreme Court decision, here's a link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=252
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, here is an article discussing Miranda rights and terrorists. The Obama administration said on Sunday that it wants to work with Congress on possible limitations of the constitutional rights afforded terrorism suspects and even for American citizens. Attorney General Eric Holder said changes may be needed to allow law enforcement more time to question suspected terrorists before they are told about their Miranda rights to a lawyer and to remain silent under interrogation. With the current “public safety” exception to Miranda, does there really need to be a change to a fundamental constitutional protection like Miranda?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html