Just like those you criticize, you are using your opinion of something as justification, that certainly falls under the first amendment.Originally Posted by STTAB
Super Minion
Just like those you criticize, you are using your opinion of something as justification, that certainly falls under the first amendment.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
Giving aid and comfort to an enemy of this country certainly does NOT fall within the First Amendment Kath. In fact it is expressly called TREASON in Article 3 of the COTUS.
Super Minion
Calling something 'aid and comfort' does not make it so, it's you defining something based upon your opinion.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Just Me
Therein lies THE problem.
The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.
It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already hereIt goes back to the heart of my argument from the beginning. We're being wordsmithed out of a country. These boneheads are using the Constitution, and what it does and does not say, to dismantle the Constitution.
I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.
I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.
If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Super Minion
Therein lies THE problem.
The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.
It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already here
I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.
I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.
If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.
We disagree. Again, it will be awhile before there's any real evidence of where we're going. If I'm correct, there will be a different system in force-however that comes about. If you are correct, there will be some sort of final battle, violent or not, and there will a restoration or something else. (Not sure how there would be a restoration though, since neither side seems to want the current system).
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Super Minion
I am confused though, how one says to go ahead and break the laws, but say the Constitution matters to them. I guess you're saying just during these 'extreme' times, ones that have never faced this country before?Therein lies THE problem.
The "usual" disclaimer: My comment is not about you, but it IS about the response you give. Your statement above is THE reason the left/Dems are getting away with treason among other assorted crimes. No laws specifically state they can't be uncivilized a-holes either, and they play that to the hilt. What is happening and they are doing is obvious. And I know YOU know it.
It is not "opinion" what they are doing. And when I say that, I'm not going to restate the list of crap. It's already here
I'm sorry, but THAT is THE point where if the greater good requires one to break the law to preserve it in the end, then that is what should be done rather than watch it be destroyed one word at a time by people who have no idea what they are doing, even to themselves ultimately.
I get principle. Got plenty of those antiquated notions I like to stand on. I can't stand on them much if my "Right" to do so, even if only on paper, is taken away. Then, we won't even be allowed to do what we are doing now and discuss it. The decision will be made for us.
If tearing down the US Constitution is the goal, by WHATEVER means, I consider it treason. I consider those doing so unamerican and traitors. I would have half if not more of them in jail. I most certainly would not watch them walking out of my living room with the TV, sofa, etc while arguing the definition of ownership.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Just Me
That's the rub with you and me and this topic.
It was okay for Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus and he's considered a National hero. That was in direct violation of the Constitution. And that was just one of the Constitutional Rights he trampled.
FDR basically suspended everyone's Rights "for the duration". Especially the First Amendment Right to free speech. Free speech included only "I love 'Merica".
The country has, in fact, faced times just as extreme before. I consider the very existence of the Constitution being at stake quite extreme and that is where we are. If "suspending habeus corpus" is justified to preserve the Union, which has been set as a precedent in this country, so be it.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
Senior Member
And that's what juries are for. Simple as that.
Super Minion
Not really, that’s what prosecutors and grand juries are for.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Senior Member
That's true, but if you can't even agree that there is probable cause to suspect treason well then we can just agree that you are wrong and move on . Oh wait, the nice thing to say would have been "agree to disagree" I always get that wrong.
Super Minion
We agree that the 'decider' is that whom can bring charges.On the issue of 'treason' we agree to disagree. I do hope that was nice.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Smitten Senior Admin
You are both partially correct. The hurdle of the grand jury must be overcome, but then it may likely be a jury making the ultimate decision. Unless of course it is a non-jury trial. I don’t know how treason trials operate.
After the game, the king and the pawn go into the same box - Author unknown
“Unfortunately, the truth is now whatever the media say it is”
-Abbey
Senior Member
In a federal criminal case prosecutors have the right to accept or reject a trial by jury waiver, making it HIGHLY unlikely that anyone accused of treason would ever be judged without a jury.
Plus of course only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial anyway. Meaning the most likely outcome is a plea agreement, even if the charge is treason.
Super Minion
If you don't get past first the DA, then the Grand Jury, one doesn't have to worry about the jury.
And this side discussion began with STABB saying it would be the jury that 'defined' not 'decided' treason. I was answering that those deciding whether or not there was reason to believe treason may have occurred would be decided by charges being brought-thus DA, then Grand Jury.
Last edited by Kathianne; 06-13-2019 at 02:30 PM.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote