Althouse: "It doesn’t happen very often, but you’re obviously not attached to the principles of the Constitution if you’re being trained in bomb-making in Waziristan when you take the oath."

May 8, 2010

"It doesn’t happen very often, but you’re obviously not attached to the principles of the Constitution if you’re being trained in bomb-making in Waziristan when you take the oath."

Bomb-fizzler Faisal Shahzad got to become a U.S. citizen, despite the requirement that he swear to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies." Imagine that!

22 comments:

Chase said...: So, does that technically mean he should also be tried for treason?; 5/8/10, 10:03 AM
Heather said...: I like that idea more than taking away constitutional rights of an American citizen.; 5/8/10, 10:07 AM
Chase said...: He does appear to be smart enough to have made his attempt in very liberal Second Amendment-hating New York City. Obviously Shahzad calculated his chances of survival would be much better if his bomb failed in New York than they would have been if he had failed in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona; 5/8/10, 10:11 AM
Unknown said...: It's essentially the same oath the Armed Forces take, so I'd presume members of Congress do as well.

Since Congress (especially this one) generally ignores the Constitution, can we have them all fired and start over?; 5/8/10, 10:21 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: “All we’re hearing is that these visas are for the best and brightest,” said Mr. Krikorian, whose Washington-based group advocates sharp reductions in immigration. “This guy, both from his grades and his incompetent bomb-making skills, wasn’t the best and brightest of anything.”

There is that "incompetent" charge again.. I know this is not the case but the focus on it, over and over, feels as if we seek a "competent" one.

That charge of "incompetence" was my father's favorite motivational device.; 5/8/10, 10:28 AM
Heather said...: Since Congress (especially this one) generally ignores the Constitution, can we have them all fired and start over?

Well, the whole House and 1/3 of the Senate have a job performance review in November. We can fire them then.; 5/8/10, 10:28 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: “People rarely go to their interview and say they think it would be a great idea to plant a bomb in Times Square.”

You think you need more time?...

You want to come back when you are ready ;); 5/8/10, 10:33 AM
AllenS said...: Don't worry, Sec. of State Clinton has been telling Pakistan that if a terroristic bomb goes off in the US we'll kick the shit out of them. Or something like that.; 5/8/10, 10:35 AM
Paco Wové said...: "...I know this is not the case but the focus on [the 'incompetent' charge]..."

...is mainly because a lot of people are pretty PO'ed about the widespread and ongoing abuse of the H1-B program by corporations, and the government's unwillingness to do anything about it. A side issue, really.; 5/8/10, 10:38 AM
Curtiss said...: “You can do all the checks in the world; there’s no way to know what’s in their heart or head,” said Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “People rarely go to their interview and say they think it would be a great idea to plant a bomb in Times Square.”

Rarely? Does that mean some do?; 5/8/10, 11:06 AM
Humperdink said...: Joe Lieberman is trying in invoke some obscure law to revoke his citizenship.....I hope he succeeds then we waterboard the snot out of him. Oops, scratch that, I forgot who was in charge.; 5/8/10, 11:43 AM
clint said...: Chase said, "So, does that technically mean he should also be tried for treason?"

I support this.

He's an American citizen -- he doesn't go to Guantanamo. He does get his Miranda warning. And any pre-Miranda statements can't be used against him.

But if he's guilty of taking up arms against the United States of America, as a citizen, he's a traitor. And we have the death penalty for traitors.; 5/8/10, 12:16 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Maybe if he had been lucky enough to have Chief Justice Roberts bungle his citizenship swearing in then he would not really be bound by that oath?; 5/8/10, 1:30 PM
William said...: Islamic fanatics are seldom willing to put in the long hours and hard work necessary to climb the corporate ladder at Elizabeth Arden.; 5/8/10, 2:20 PM
mariner said...: clint:
But if he's guilty of taking up arms against the United States of America, as a citizen, he's a traitor. And we have the death penalty for traitors.

Unfortunately we don't.

We should. It's on the books. But the leftists will never let him be executed, and the rightists don't have the numbers or the spine to make it happen.; 5/8/10, 2:59 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Mariner is totally on tgt here. To further expand, the right is afraid if they bring the charge the whole legal status of whether we are officially in a "state of war"--de facto or de jure--will become a legal nightmare which could hamstring everything from troop funding to "legal" status of the Taliban viz Geneva Convention, POW vs "illegal combatant" etc.

The left, by contrast, fears that if used, Treason charges will be seized upon by the right as a club with which to charge Pentagon leakers and news organizations like the NYT who publish Top Secret War plans, CIA operations, etc., using usage in instances such as this case as foundational precedent.; 5/8/10, 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not that attached to Roe v Wade, does that mean I don't support the Constitution in it's entirety and should thus lose my rights as a whole?; 5/8/10, 8:05 PM
paul a'barge said...: Please.

Just kill the mutt already.; 5/8/10, 10:48 PM
Methadras said...: Naturalized citizens who engage in traitorous endeavors against the US as a means of terrorism foreign or domestic should have their citizenship terminated. Natural born citizens should be Marandized since citizenship is their birthright, but a process of renunciation of citizenship should be available to them in the event they so desire to do so.; 5/8/10, 11:37 PM
Mick said...: Methadras said,

"Natural born citizens should be Marandized since citizenship is their birthright, but a process of renunciation of citizenship should be available to them in the event they so desire to do so."

Just birth within country doesn't make one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. What you are talking about is Native born citizen. All Natural Born Citizens are Native born, but to be Natural Born, eligible to be POTUS, both of your parents must be US Citizens (either native born or naturalized). Obama has admitted that his father was not a US Citizen when Obama 2 was born (or ever). As such Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. There are 2 ways to remove a sitting POTUS, Impeachment for crimes and misdemeaners, and Quo Warranto for failing to qualify (if the 20th Amendment fails (Electoral College) fails to disqualify him).; 5/9/10, 9:40 AM
Chase said...: All Natural Born Citizens are Native born, but to be Natural Born, eligible to be POTUS, both of your parents must be US Citizens (either native born or naturalized).

Wrong. No Court will back that up because the "both parents" clause is not in the Constitution.

Nice try, attempting to make your wishful thinking fact.; 5/9/10, 11:01 AM
Mick said...: Chase said,
"Wrong. No Court will back that up because the "both parents" clause is not in the Constitution.

Nice try, attempting to make your wishful thinking fact."

That is YOUR wishful thinking. Just like expost facto, letters of Marquis, and bill of attainder are not explicitly defined in the constitution either is Natural Born Citizen. It was very well understood at the time to be a Natural Law Term of Art, meaning "born in a country of parents who are it's citizens".
SCOTUS understood it the same exact way in:
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)

It was also understood that way in the congressional record in 1939:

FROM THE “JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES... See More” VOLUME 33 p398 January 28, 1839 :
“Resolved, That the Commitee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire on the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to EXCLUDE THOSE FROM THE PRIVLEGES OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS WHO are or shall BE BORN OF PARENTS who have been removed or shall remove, from the United States, and have or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such persons shall become naturalized LIKE OTHER FOREIGNERS, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.”(my caps)

I realize facts mean little to your ilk, but the judge in Minor v. Happersett agrees w/ you. The meaning is not in the Constitution. Then he said "it was NEVER DOUBTED that the children of citizens born within the US are the Natives or Natural Born Citizens."; 5/9/10, 11:36 AM