Posted on 03/07/2013 4:28:02 PM PST by mandaladon
Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's question about whether the federal government can legally use a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil if the person is "not engaged in combat":
Earlier this week, Holder wrote in a letter to Paul that the president has the authority to order militarized drone strikes on American citizens within the United States, but only in “an extraordinary circumstance.”
In protest, Paul spoke for 13 hours straight on the Senate floor Wednesday, arguing against the drone policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Juan and Linda are drones, attacking America daily.
Amendment I
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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Take your Bible, too. That’ll do it for sure!
Oh!!!! And you MUST go to the most LIBERAL part of town for the full effect of The-Drones-That-Won’t-Be-Falling. Ugh
Obama has referred to the republicans as the “enemy” on several occasions.
Yup.
Any kind of resistance.
Combat=Pop tart gun
So if the BATF or some other Blue Helmet is doing a No Knock Invasion of your house and you resist????
To quote Hillary “What does it matter now?”
“Combat” = registering to vote.
are drones so precise that there is no collateral damage ?
Would “voting from a roof top” be considered “combat?”
I just want all the rules spelled out like the founding fathers ensured in the Constitution.
If we are going to play games, we all need to know the rules.
Quoting the bill of rights doesn’t tell me how drone strikes have anything to do with the 4th amendment. Search & seizure? Search warrants.
They’re unconstitutional, yes, but it’s a 5th amendment issue, not 4th.
“It violates the 4th Amendment!”
Next will be the 3rd.
Anybody who doesn't know how these weasels think isn't qualified to deal with them.
We’re gonna need people that know how to deal with these drones.
I have noted that BO’s sickos have repeately called holder “General holder”, not “attorney general”. BARF.
What a terse, tacky, sarcastic, insulting little note from our AG. What a jerk.
I don’t see how the 4th applies...
********
There is a youtube video that explains it very well. Titled something like the 4th amendment for dummies....not because we are dummies but they use a crash test dummy to do the talking. It’s actually a very good lesson on the 4th.
You are correct that the 5th Amendment is also in play due to lack of due process. I am not a lawyer so I don't know if the 8th Amendment clause on cruel and severe punishment applies to the government or only judicial sentencing.
No, the drones are intended against Americans in combat — fighting to preserve their 2A constitutional rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.