Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "House PASSES 'Antisemitism' Resolution, Massie Votes NO: Anti-Zionism ISN'T Antisemitism" video.

Disagree. It should have to be divulged, then left up to the voters. Anything else is an impermissible loyalty oath, and thus unconstitutional.
8
@Uno.Numero Wait a second --- where did I say I would vote for a dual national?? I care about constitutional RIGHTS. Not like Ben Shapiro, who made a career out of "supporting" free speech, until that meant rights for those defending the Palestinians. Rights means rights, for everyone. Not just People I Like.
6
@Uno.Numero Okay, that is an irrational rant. Calm down. If you are interested in knowing about actual rights, a small college in Tennessee actually has a website on free speech that gives an outstanding summary. When you feel better, be sure to read it.
4
@utah_koidragon7117 That's probably true. I don't see why not.
4
@utah_koidragon7117 Well, petition your Congress members and Senators. They have constitutional lawyers on staff, or they have ready access to such lawyers, to assist in drafting the statute. Go for it. That's clearly your right.
3
@Uno.Numero I disagree, and I know that what you propose is unconstitutional. You can't control loyalty by forcing a certain group to renounce their second nationality. No matter what genuflection you require, what makes you think Israel, and they themselves, don't consider themselves Israeli as well as American? You're just trying to control an outward manifestation to no purpose, except maybe to cause some dual nationals to pretend they aren't. Nice work, dude.
2
@utah_koidragon7117 Then what you need to do is get Congress to pass a law concerning whether American citizens can seek a second citizenship without relinquishing all the rights and privileges of being an American citizen, or whether some of those rights and privileges are thereby lost. It's a timeline thing. The fact that a naturalized citizen, upon gaining citizenship, has to swear allegiance to our Constitution doesn't tell us anything about whether an American can seek a second citizenship without losing any rights he has by being an American citizen --- as is obvious, given that both are the law. In any case, you could only pass the law you advocate as governing prospectively. Current dual nationals in government can't be kicked out. That's unconstitutional as well (ex post facto).
2
@utah_koidragon7117 Also, it's unconstitutional under other provisions as well, like the equal protection clause, etc. Nor did I say that all loyalty oaths are impermissible.
2
@utah_koidragon7117 You know, in light of Cole v. Richardson, 405 US 676 (1972), it might take some doing to draft a constitutional law. I still think you're right that it could be done, and it would be upheld by the current Court. That case is pretty tough on such laws. Rightly so.
2
@utah_koidragon7117 But look at all the reasoning involved, not just the facts of that case. That's the thing about constitutional law --- you have to be super careful. No one in St. Paul, MN, expected R.A.V. to turn out the way it did, least of all the Minnesota Supreme Court.
2
@Uno.Numero Glad to know so few people support civil liberties anymore . . . NOT. Lack of realism about forcing people underground is cool as well . . . NOT.
1
@kalijasin That's the Treason statute. Give me a break. If it were treason, NO ONE could be a dual national.
1
@utah_koidragon7117 I actually don't think you can single out office holding as the one thing a person gives up, or at least not very easily. There has to be something that anyone who embarks upon gaining a second nationality has to give up, and has to know in advance before they apply for a second country's citizenship, that isn't ad hoc. The reason is that it's not automatically evident what level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or lower) the Supreme Court would apply to the law if it were challenged. I'm not saying it can't be done. It's harder than it looks. The strong presumption is against such laws. As for a president having to be a natural born citizen, that is an express constitutional requirement, and has been interpreted not to exclude people like John McCain (good call, imo). My point is that not even that law is crystal clear on its face. Is someone who was born in Alaska or Hawaii in 1958 excluded? (There may be some statute on that, I don't know.) In any case, the Constitution says nothing about a president not being allowed to have two nationalities. (I bet the Founders assumed we would not vote for such a person --- or miscreant, in their eyes.)
1
That's not what this resolution says, or means. You mean you don't know the US (not to mention the world) is full of Orthodox rabbis and other devout Jews who consider Zionism morally wrong? Just what do you know about other cultures? That doesn't mean they support an entirely different state, dominated by terrorists no less, to replace the Israeli state. Look at what words mean for a change.
1