Tom Tancredo Saves America From the Constitution Again

This evening lets discuss Sharia law. Now, I am firmly against Islamic extremism and all the things that it entails, but I am against Tancredo’s recent moves against civil liberties and constitutionally protected rights. I realize that some out there will say, but we are at war against Islamic extremists so we must do everything we can to bring the evil doers to justice and stymie terrorist groups attempts to organize and cause mayhem within the United States. I am inclined to agree with going after terrorists and bust up possible cells, but . . . . and its a rather big but . . . . we must make sure that we stay within the limits of law and reason. The constitution is the law of the land and it must be followed at all times. I say all this to segue into my rant.

Tom Tancredo and his GOP allies are attempting to get the following piece of legislation through congress and into the law books:

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 6975

To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 18, 2008

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Jihad Prevention Act’.

SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION FOR ALIENS FAILING TO MAKE ATTESTATION.

Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(G) SHARIA LAW SYSTEM- Any alien who fails to attest, in accordance with procedures specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States is inadmissible.’.

SEC. 3. REVOCATION OF VISAS.

Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `The visa of any alien advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall be revoked.’.

SEC. 4. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.

Section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Advocating the installation of a Sharia law system in the United States shall constitute a ground for revocation of a person’s naturalization under this subsection.’.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6975:

In case you are not sure about the text of (8 U.S.C. 1451(a)) I have provided it for you below

Concealment of material evidence; refusal to testify
It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the
respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor,
to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States
in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may
reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking
and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship
and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that
such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally
procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by
willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of
the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling
of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the
original date of the order and certificate, respectively: Provided,
That refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period
of ten years following his naturalization to testify as a witness
in any proceeding before a congressional committee concerning his
subversive activities, in a case where such person has been
convicted of contempt for such refusal, shall be held to constitute
a ground for revocation of such person’s naturalization under this
subsection as having been procured by concealment of a material
fact or by willful misrepresentation. If the naturalized citizen
does not reside in any judicial district in the United States at
the time of bringing such suit, the proceedings may be instituted
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or
in the United States district court in the judicial district in
which such person last had his residence.

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1451.html

While I can support revoking the visas of foreigners who adhere to Sharia law as there is no expressed constitutional protection to them, I rail against Section 4 of this bill because it would enable the government to strip naturalized citizens of their American citizenship on the basis of religion. “So whats the problem,” you ask. Well that one is simple this piece of legislation as it stands violates the first and the fourteenth amendment. For your reference here is the text of those two amendments

Amendment One:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment Fourteen:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As it stands congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact legislation to strip someone of their citizenship because of their religion. Again I am for fighting and winning the war on terror, but we must protect the constitution and civil liberties. Tom Tancredo is violating the constitution and needs to be stopped.