The United States of America is creating ex post facto laws by insisting that persons born in the United States who lost their citizenship in the past but failed to inform the State Department are now once again citizens who must file income taxes and FBARs in the United States. The US Constitution clearly forbids Congress and the states from enacting ex post facto laws (Article I, sec. 9-10).
That means that if the laws of the United States said you were no longer a citizen when you took on foreign citizenship or when you evaded the draft by fleeing to a foreign country, they cannot retroactively reinstate you as a citizen after the fact against your will.
This is a basic principle of United States law and the attempt to reinstate former US citizens, against their wills, is a brazen violation of the rule of law.
On the violations of the rule of law in the Obama administration, see the American Thinker on the subject.
Your link leads to an important concept in this whole issue, ie the establishment and defense of the Rule of Law in the Constitution.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of the Obama presidency, following as it does the Bush presidency, is that the people have ample opportunity to see the consequences of the arbitrary nature of a government of men and not of laws. Not since the Vietnam era have I seen, in America, such intense interest in the constraint of government power due to the arbitrary exercise of it, and so much discussion on the question of the proper role of government in a democracy. We have seen this discussion more recently, however, in other countries like Russia and Iran and Libya and Egypt, when the people were energized by the demise of a tyrannical rule and the possibility of individual freedom in a new era of representative democracy.
In America, I think these passions are aroused by the bitter disappointment of a populace that thought that in 2008 they were electing a President who would reverse many of the unconscionable abuses of power by the previous administration in the name of national security. Instead we have a leader who continues those practices and more, in the name of economic security. The lesson we must learn is this: It is not the wrong people who are in power; it is that the power resides in the wrong place.
The Constitution was written to define and limit the scope of government power. The underlying principle of this document is that the people may do anything they wish except that which is specifically prohibited to them. But the government may do NOTHING, except that which is specifically permitted to it. (Regardless of how you feel about Ayn Rand, it was in her writings that I first encountered this principle.)
But bit by bit, over two centuries, the people have allowed the government to expand its power through minor concessions in the name of expediency: “Oh here, let me do that for you. You are too busy/distracted/uninterested/unqualified/incapable/incompetent to do it correctly.” Today we have a large constituency of people who think that the government should be doing even more. Consequently we see governments taking more power every day, because they can.
The US government now reaches across borders, even bypassing the diplomatic customs governing the Canada/US alliance, to delegate citizenship to selected Canadians and recruit the unwilling participation of Canadian financial institutions in order to enforce US laws of questionable constitutionality. They are unopposed by the invertebrate Canadian officials whose job, surely at a minimum, is to maintain and secure the individual rights of Canadian citizens and residents. Canada has a constitution too – remember? Does anybody know where we put it?
Foxy Ladyhawk, I can’t wait for you to start writing your on posts. Excellent thoughts.
Thanks – I wanted to add some thoughts on your post and it sorta grew.
Pingback: Did you relinquish before February 6, 1995? Then you did not have to inform the State Department | The Isaac Brock Society