[MoralSense]

Well, Cong., I actually wrote to this Professor a couple of weeks ago, asking about citizenship and whether it could be considered foresworn or revoked for taking up arms against the US. He said no. Revoking citizenship, he told me, requires a hearing and a finding.

[truth_seeker]

Well, Cong., I actually wrote to this Professor a couple of weeks ago, asking about citizenship and whether it could be considered foresworn or revoked for taking up arms against the US. He said no. Revoking citizenship, he told me, requires a hearing and a finding.

So is it your concern that such a hearing, wouldn't return a finding to revoke? I read my passport, and it explicitly warned of certain acts which would constitute grounds for losing one's citizenship.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Professor is right. Revocation of citizenship does require a hearing and a finding. But that happens in a civil hearing, with no right to a trial by jury (as I understand) and under the "preponderance of the evidence" test, rather than in criminal court under the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If the government is going to use the min\litary tribunal route, they will have to conduct such a citizenship hearing in advance of the trial proper on the charges.

Did you find the Professor to be as engaging and no-nonsense as his article makes him appear?

Congressman Billybob

Click and bookmark for my daily morning radio gig.