Note that the finding in Terrazas that “Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent” was unanimous.

A jihadist would be construed to have “voluntarily relinquished” their rights as a citizen by their conduct.

No matter how long you hammer at this lie, it remains a lie. As I pointed out in the very statute you quoted, citizenship cannot be lost without the intent to relinquish it. That intent is absolutely required, and nothing will substitute for it. No conduct can cause citizenship, once lawfully obtained, to be involuntarily lost.

Nothing can be “construed” as a voluntariy relinquishment in the face of the person’s contemporaneous statement that he didn’t intend to do so; all he needs to do is send an email to the state department saying “I’m going off to fight for Allah, and BTW I’m keeping my citizenship kthxbai”. Or he can simply travel on his US passport while serving in the jihad, thus demonstrating that he continues to regard himself as a US citizen.

Of course we can. What sort of scrutiny do you imagine it would have to stand up to? Treason is clearly a capital offense, but the constitutional requirements for proving it may prove difficult. No problem, though. Aiding the enemy doesn’t have to be charged as treason, it can be charged as a lesser offense that still carries the death penalty, and isn’t subject to those constituional constraints.

The first of the four “grounds” it gives is obvious: If it’s discovered that a person was never naturalized in the first place, then no “denaturalization” is necessary, just as if it’s discovered that someone wasn’t really born in the USA no “debirth” process is necessary. Naturalization obtained under false pretenses is void; thus, people who thought they were naturalized citizens have lost their citizenship because it was proved that they lied on their application.

What the other three “grounds” are really saying is that naturalization is a process that takes 10 years, and that those in the process are only provisionally citizens. Congress authorizes them to act as citizens, and if they don’t mess up within 10 years they are finally naturalized and can do whatever they like, but within those 10 years the process can be stopped.

Got one other minor point to you to consider, to weigh against “Black Letter Law;” Martial Law. Tamp that down in your pipe and feel that smoke irritating your lungs. Once that were lifted, if it were to be lifted, then your writ might have some value. Understand I’m not hoping for that kind of outcome, yet feel strongly that’s what would happen, especially with our President Obama, el Supremo.

In lieu of that, the death penalty for US citizens who have fought for AQ or ISIS might possibly stand up to scrutiny. We can’t strip them of citizenship but we can certainly execute them for aiding the enemy.

IF that’s what Milhouse is saying, he’s got the Supremes on his side?

VANCE v. TERRAZAS, etc., down-thread. Unless there’s another case more recent, etc., etc.?

A jihadist would be construed to have “voluntarily relinquished” their rights as a citizen by their conduct.

If a court has to define something as “inalienable”, you poor confused thing, then it ISN’T INALIENABLE”, but something you hold subject to being told you DON’T.

And, no, prisoners only have such 1st Amendment “rights” as the penal systems and courts have granted them. A prisoner in solitary MAY gibber, but nobody will hear him/her.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=252

1. In establishing loss of citizenship, the Government must prove an intent to surrender United States citizenship, not just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation. Congress does not have any general power to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his “assent,” which means an intent to relinquish citizenship, whether the intent is expressed in [444 U.S. 252, 253] words or is found as a fair inference from his conduct. The expatriating acts specified in 349 (a) cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. The trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship. Cf. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 . Pp. 258-263.

FWIW

And yes, it is explicit in the fourteenth amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” All persons, without exception, no matter what they’ve done.

Although a person’s enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality […]

. Note carefully those last words before I broke off the quote. “And with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality.” That is they key phrase; without that intention Congress is powerless to cancel the person’s citizenship.

So yes, black letter law.

Also, I’m afraid your other “rationale” regarding the Bill Of Rights is just loopy.

Prisoners are pretty commonly denied 1st Amendment rights. Try getting a cell phone to one. Heh!

There is no first amendment right to a cell phone. If there were, then prisoners would be entitled to them, and the courts would force prisons to allow them. Prisoners don’t have to be supplied with the means of communicating to those outside the prison, but prisons may not grant such means to those expressing views the administration likes, and deny them to those expressing views it doesn’t like. They must either grant or deny them to all.

Felons are MOST OFTEN denied Second Amendment rights.

So far, the courts have not regarded the 2nd amendment as inalienable. Perhaps that will change in the future.

Fourth Amendment rights are just barely there for a parolee or probationer. They aren’t there at all for a prisoner.

Prisoners don’t own their cells, so they have no more right not to have the owner search it than a house guest has not to have her host search the room he has assigned her. Also, the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches; searching prisoners and their cells is perfectly reasonable.

Parole is a gift, and it can be conditioned on waiving any rights. If the prisoner doesn’t like it, he’s free to remain in prison, where legally he belongs.

Prisoners are pretty commonly denied 1st Amendment rights. Try getting a cell phone to one. Heh!

Felons are MOST OFTEN denied Second Amendment rights.

Fourth Amendment rights are just barely there for a parolee or probationer. They aren’t there at all for a prisoner.

See…???

So. Not so “black letter” at all. Kinda grey, seems to me.

Oh, and there is nothing whatsoever in the 14th Amendment that supports your position. You should reread it.