I was shocked that the administration moved on the 1st Amendment before the 2nd. Assaults on religious liberty have been incredible, and the "most transparent administration in history" has no qualms about dismissing the press when they feel like it and abusing it when they don't like what they have to say.
Drone strikes gave me pause. You can legally blow up enemy combatants any way you like. American citizens, are stickier, though. They enjoy constitutional protections. The solution is as simple as going to a FISA court for a warrant. If you take up arms against your country, your citizenship can be revoked. Do that, then they're simply enemy combatants and you can blow them up. Why not take that simple step to defend the constitution?
Clearly, it's because this lawless administration doesn't feel bound by the constitution, or the rights it does not grant (as they preexisted the document) but rather formalizes and guarantees. Need further proof?
Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal
There is nothing I can say strong enough to underscore the significance of this. This is truly a "Holy Crap" moment in our history.
Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.No, Mr. Holder. It is never okay, under any circumstance to murder a U.S. citizen from the sky on the president's authority. Dictators do that. Monarchs* do that. Fascist and communist regimes do that. The United States of America never, ever does that.
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.
Droning an unsuspecting victim form the sky is not the same as ending a crime in progress through a police shooting. It's not the same as serving a lawfully obtained warrant and in the process having to shoot the wanted criminal. It's acting on the president's authority to assassinate an American citizen on American soil. At the very least, it violates the 5th amendment. If it were ever to be done, it would deserve a trial for treason.
*If you said a monarch is a dictator, that's pretty true.