437 private links
After noting that Omar's speech has led to calls for expulsion from Congress and denaturalization, Turley wrote: "Neither would be appropriate," in his view.
The speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Omar is not advocating imminent violent or criminal conduct. She is expressing her personal priorities and loyalties.
The omission of an expression of loyalty to the United States has left many irate and insulted. However, it is still protected speech. Indeed, burning an American flag and condemning America are protected forms of free expression. //
The growing calls for denaturalization are disconnected from governing constitutional and statutory standards. //
Others can condemn Rep. Omar’s comment, but they cannot strip away her citizenship due to her exercise of free speech.
The greatest disconnect in these calls is that Omar would be stripped of her citizenship for exercising the very right that defines us as citizens. //
"This country is not endangered by a lack of patriotism or even a lack of loyalty in others," Turley wrote, concluding: "It is threatened by allowing our anger to blind us to the denial of the very thing that defines us."
Again, while it might be frustrating to some of us and angering as hell to others, as hard as it is to admit, Jonathan Turley was right. //
Just Jim
17 hours ago
Apparently oaths of allegiance mean nothing anymore.
The principles embodied in the Oath are codified in Section 337(a) in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that all
applicants shall take an oath that incorporates the substance of the following:Support the Constitution;
Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
Bear true faith and allegiance to the same ... //
etba_ss
15 hours ago edited
Turley is wrong. She's violating the oath she took, which is grounds for expulsion from Congress and revoking her naturalized citizenship.
Besides that, the law is not a suicide pact. There are two sets of rules at play. We better decide if we want to surrender or if we want to restore this country. Those are the two choices. Writing a white paper on the virtues of the law is going to get us and Turley sent to a gulag. //
Watch-tower
18 hours ago
He is not always right and in this case he is not. She took an oath of office. Her words violate that oath. Some investigation is needed to see if she have received favors, titles or renumeration from Somalia, as that would violate the Constitution.
This is more than free speech. This is a disavowal of her US citizenship.
Rogue Rose Watch-tower
16 hours ago
And she fraudulently took the oath of citizenship.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America ... //