[1rudeboy]

Your legal analysis is incomplete without considering this US Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)(finding that an unlawful belligerent need not be afforded Constituional protections despite being a US citizen).

[sandmanbr]

Your legal analysis is incomplete without considering this US Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)(finding that an unlawful belligerent need not be afforded Constituional protections despite being a US citizen).

If the Supreme Court ruled you have no right of speech, religion, or no right to own a firearm would that make it legal? Read what the Constitution says about due process and decide for yourself if this is constitutional. Personally I don't need a half dozen men in black tell me what the meaning of plain English is. Unlike Bubba I know what the meaning of is IS.

[Sandy]

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)(finding that an unlawful belligerent need not be afforded Constituional protections despite being a US citizen).

Not quite. What the Court said was that a person charged with unlawful belligerency had no right to have his case tried in a civil court.