[ctdonath2]

What part of 'any' isn't clear to them?

It's absurd to think Congress meant to apply foreign law, all the way from my speeding ticket in Canada to not voting for Saddam in Iraq (punishment: termination of your family), to the enjoyment of rights in the USA.

[ClintonBeGone]

It's absurd to think Congress meant to apply foreign law, all the way from my speeding ticket in Canada to not voting for Saddam in Iraq (punishment: termination of your family), to the enjoyment of rights in the USA.

If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'conviced in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute.

[ClintonBeGone]

It's absurd to think Congress meant to apply foreign law, all the way from my speeding ticket in Canada to not voting for Saddam in Iraq (punishment: termination of your family), to the enjoyment of rights in the USA.

If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'convicted in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute. If that's what congress means, they can amend the law to make it clear.

[AmishDude]

Congress certainly meant "any" court. These laws are written by some of the best lawyers (not the Congressman, but their staff lawyers) and lawyers know the implications of their language.

Besides, it's not the courts role to decide this. They have to read what the law says and not try to play as if they are The Amazing Kreskin.