Category: Constitution

Hoda Muthana is not a citizen

Or so says U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton. You might remember Hoda Muthana: she left college in the U.S. to travel to Syria and support ISIS. She has now renounced her ISIS activities and wishes to return to the U.S.

One thing that is interesting about this story is how it is being portrayed in the media. Left-leaning sources portray this as an example of the evil, callous nature of the Trump administration, since they refuse to let Hoda return to the United States. Right-leaning sources, however, are quick to point out that it was not the Trump administration that cancelled Hoda’s passport claiming she was not a citizen – it was the Obama administration.

Here’s the meat of the story from a compilation of several sources (here, here and here, for starters):

Hoda was born in the U.S. to foreign parents. Her father was in the U.S. as a diplomat represented Yemen in the United Nations, but claims that his service for Yemen ended before Hoda was born. This is an important point because children born of diplomats enjoying diplomatic immunity are not “…subject to the jurisdiction…” of the United States and are therefor not beneficiaries of the 14th amendment’s citizenship grant to those born in the U.S.

Unfortunately for Hoda, the United States disagrees. According to the law, Hoda’s father enjoyed diplomatic immunity until the UN notified the U.S. that his service had terminated, which occurred after Hoda’s birth. Here’s where it gets interesting: While Hoda’s father claims that he was no longer a diplomat when she was born, and Yemen agrees that his service terminated prior to Hoda’s birth, the UN did not notify the U.S. until 1995. As a result, Hoda’s father still enjoyed diplomatic immunity under the laws of the United States (and thus his children born during this time are not afforded U.S. citizenship). It is important to note that diplomatic immunity for UN diplomats is terminated only when the UN notifies the Unites States, irrespective of the claimed date of termination by the originating country.

This method of determining diplomatic immunity for UN representatives – when the host state is officially notified by the UN – is critical for a fair and impartial system. If immunity was conferred solely on the claims of the originating country the system would be ripe for corruption. For instance, a foreign national arrested for a crime could be protected from prosecution simply by having his country make the claim that he was acting in a diplomatic position at the time. Alternatively, if a foreign national wanted the children born under his tenure as a diplomat to be considered U.S. citizens, he could request that his country back-date his service termination to a time before their birth. The only way to protect the system from such abuses is for a neutral 3rd party record keeper to be between the source and host countries – in this case, that 3rd party is the UN. This is why the dates for coverage of diplomatic immunity for UN diplomats are based solely on when the host state is notified of the status change by the UN.

An interesting read on the government’s case against Muthana (actually, against a case brought by her father) can be found here.

Nancy Pelosi is off her meds

Nancy is at it again. This time she’s advocating for laws that would allow a sitting president to be indicted (outside of the impeachment system).

There is a reason for requiring impeachment over indictment – it prevents the circus we see today. We’ve all been witness to this absurd charade: one political party, upset with the results of the previous election, uses state and federal courts sympathetic to their cause to harass, obstruct and otherwise interfere with the Office of the President or the President’s private affairs under the guise of “justice”.

In the words of former President Obama:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

Stop obstructing, Nancy. If you don’t like what the President does, then run against him in the next election. But whether you like it or not, Trump won the election fair and square under the terms of our Constitution.

And elections do have consequences.

Chicken Little

It’s a little premature, don’t you think, to take a valid comment and twist it into an anti-abortion war cry?

Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning ‘demonstrably erroneous’ precedent, touching off Roe v. Wade speculation

Here’s what Thomas said that set off the firestorm:

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it…”

There have been many cases where Supreme court precedent has been overturned, either by Congress (ex: Dredd Scott) or the Supreme Court itself, and I’m sure we can find examples that would convince most anyone (on the left or right) that sometimes a reversal of precedent is the right thing to do.

So, Chicken Little, quit crying wolf. Stating the obvious (Supreme Court precedent sometimes should be overturned) does not mean the sky is falling. And there are 9 Supreme Court Justices, not 1.

Deeply concerning

Don’t they realize the impact of such end-runs around the constitution?

Nevada Poised To Become 15th State To Sidestep Traditional Electoral College Outcome

I don’t understand why the typical voter, whose knowledge of the constitution appears to be quite limited, sees themselves as being smarter than the framers of our constitution.

I can’t wait to see how Nevadans react when the popular vote goes to a politician they despise – say, for supporting a nuclear waste dump in their state…

Why I support the 2nd amendment

This story illustrates one problem faced by a disarmed society:

Off-duty FDNY firefighter attacked by teens after defending elderly couple, cops say

Without a way to fend off a physically or numerically superior attacker, we are at the whim of any brute or mob that happens by.

The gun is known as the “great equalizer” for a reason.

This tactic is getting old

Sometimes, one side of an argument tries to make a claim that is absurd so as to make the other side look bad or evil. Frequently, it’s annoying. Here’s one example:

Father of woman who joined ISIS sues Trump administration, seeking daughter’s return to US

In this article the father’s lawyer against the government is cited as stating:

“When the Constitution ceases to rule, then it’s rule by tyranny,” Swift, director of the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America, told the newspaper Thursday.

The implication is that the government – represented by President Trump and Secretary Pompeo – is acting contrary to the Constitution and is thus tyrannical. It is a claim heard frequently with this administration; however, it is not always the case. The government is acting precisely with respect to the Constitution and laws of the United States: their position is that the woman is not a citizen by virtue of her father not having been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of his daughters birth. This is a valid exception to the birthright citizenship awarded others born in the United States.

The issue is not whether the government is violating the constitution or U.S. law; the issue is a question of fact whether or not the father was in the United States as a foreign diplomat at the time of his daughter’s birth. It is a valid question that will need to be taken up by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until then there is no basis for the “…rule by tyranny…” claim.

If at some point a court rules in favor of the father, and after all appeals are exhausted the government still refuses entry to the daughter, then we can talk about charges of “tyranny”. However, until then such talk is merely rhetoric meant to inflame the senses and the masses. I only ask that you be critical thinkers and not fall for such demagoguery, and treat those that spew such nonsense as the self-serving agitators that they are.

The intolerance of the ultra-liberal left

A disheartening student op-ed:

It’s OK that conservatives don’t feel welcome

If you want to know how I feel about this op-ed published in Student Life, the independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis, just replace the word “conservatives” with any of the following: women; African-Americans; hispanics; Jews; Muslims; or even liberals… you get the drift. Would you be so accepting of this op-ed piece then?

It’s interesting that the ultra-left claim to support diversity – except when it disagrees with their opinion. It matters not that almost 50% of the people in the U.S. are to be left “unwelcome” in their scenario. Thankfully, the Constitution protects minority opinion.

I am encouraged, however, by the responses posted to this op-ed piece on the Student Life web site, and I would encourage all to take a moment and read them. These responses indicate to me that the ultra-left are a vocal minority that receive a lot of press (and whom most are afraid of confronting), but that many students – of all political beliefs – see the irony in the position of this author.

Freedom of religion

It’s interesting that the press has decided to attack second lady Karen Pence for working at a school that espouses Christian values with respect to homosexuality. I wonder what would have happened if she had chosen to work at a Muslim or Jewish school instead? Do you think their views on homosexuality are any less barbaric than strict Christian values? If so, think again. If she did, though, I doubt we’d have heard a peep out of the press.

I understand why some might be upset over the Christian values held by Ms. Pence. However, religious freedom ranks right up their with freedom of speech in our Constitution (you might want to read that pesky 1st amendment again if you disagree). In any event, it is wrong to single out only Ms. Pence and her religion for their views on homosexuality. There are a number of representatives in Congress whose own religions are equally barbaric with respect to the treatment of homosexuals. To castigate Ms. Pence alone only shows the extreme bias of the press against Christians and conservatives.

For the record, I am a Libertarian and atheist, so I don’t have a dog in this show. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy and bias of the press.

Anti-gun propaganda

Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib of Washington refused to attend Gov. Jay Inslee’s State of the State speech. His reason? A perfectly legal activity might occur. In Washington, concealed carry (CCW) permit holders can carry their firearm in most public locations – including the galleries of the state House of Representatives where the Governor’s speech was held.

CCW permit holders in Washington are highly vetted, undergoing a background check conducted by state and federal entities. In addition, permit holders are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity; one study focusing on Texas suggests that permit holders are 10 times less likely to be convicted of a misdemeanor or felony offense, and 7 times less likely to be convicted of a firearms violation, than a police officer.

I’ve got news for you, Lt. Gov. Habib: It’s not the licensed, vetted, law-abiding CCW permit holders that should be of concern. The individuals who don’t follow the law are the ones to watch, but they won’t have any need for a CCW.

So when politicians take actions such as that by Lt. Gov. Habib, where they refuse to attend an event because the rights of the people under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States are being upheld, what they are really doing is making a political statement as to their position regarding firearms. Such actions are not based on any real or perceived danger; it’s simply propoganda. Even Lt. Gov. Habib admits as much:

“There is no specific threat to me. There is no specific threat we know of, period,” Habib said. “It’s about the policy.”

Thanks for insulting the integrity of every CCW holder in Washington, Cyrus, and for ignoring that it’s the ones without permits with whom we should be concerned.

Hammer control

From USA Today:

1 dead, 2 critically injured in hammer attack at Brooklyn restaurant

How much longer can we allow such acts of violence to continue? Even if only one life is saved, we must take action. Hammers should be banned, or a permit with background check be required for their purchase. Strict records should be kept so that confiscation can occur when hammer crimes spike. In addition, nail possession should be restricted to those with a hammer permit, and only in quantities sufficient for the task at hand.

OK, so I’m making light of a tragic situation. But it is important to understand that it is the person who is the danger, not the weapon. I also make this point to stress the futility of proposed “assault weapon” bans, such as the one making its way through Congress right now.

These proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” (termed multi-purpose rifle, or MPR, by much of the gun industry) are as pointless as the hammer ban I propose above, and will do little to curb firearm related deaths. Want proof? I offer data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report database.

For example, between 2012 and 2017 rifles of all types – including assault weapons – accounted for only 2.3% of homicides. By comparison knives or sharp instruments account for 11.5% of homicides, personal weapons (hand, feet, fists) for 4.9%, and blunt objects for  3.3%. In summary, you are 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death and more that 3.5 times as likely to be beaten to death (without or without a weapon) than you are to be shot to death with an “assault rifle”.

Why then do some lawmakers, politicians and anti-gun organizations favor these restrictions? In my opinion, it is solely to punish those who are ideologically different from themselves. Consider it the ideological equivalent of racism; it’s not that these people hate guns, it’s that they hate gun owners. I have come to this conclusion because there is simply no reason to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by creating onerous rules or restrictions that will have little to no impact on crime.