Thread: It's Official: Mexican Trucks coming

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

Why go around the issue? Bush is more or less selling this country out, which is treason. IF its not then please inform me otherwise. There is a government site and its on the white house site. I don't know how much more there needs to be to stop this, and call it what it is.

DITTO!!!!!

Originally Posted by Newmexican

I would be very curious to know what the "inspections" entail. I wonder if they will have the same restrictions and requirements as American truckers. I would hate to think that the Mexican trucker's equipment and loads wouldn't be as closely regulated as as their competition in this country.

I'm sure this program will be managed as well as our borders, homeland security, ice, ,immigration services, we all know how well thats all working. it will be a disaster!!! you can count on it!!

Originally Posted by Matthewcloseborders

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by April

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

This my friends is treason, Bush is no more then a rat, he needs to be our nations second impeached and removed president.

That is certainly true

SERIOUSLY - Do you guys even know the definition of TREASON. YOU NEED TO GET A GRIP.

Look, a decision to let trucks from a foreign country have access to our roads si not treason. It's a poor decision in this case, but it's one that the last President tried to ramrod through as well and one that happens in countries all over the world.

I don't like it.

You don't like it.

America would be better off without it.

It is NOT treason. You guys give new meaning to the term "dittohead." You start repeating something reflexively until it uses all meaning.

Why go around the issue? Bush is more or less selling this country out, which is treason. IF its not then please inform me otherwise. There is a government site and its on the white house site. I don't know how much more there needs to be to stop this, and call it what it is.

No, Matthew, it isn't - not legally speaking. You need to get yourself a copy of the Constitution and read it. As I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, the SOLE legal definition for treaty in the United States arises under Art. III, Sec. 3. If you can't understand the simple and limited definition of treason provided therein, then you need to pull out some of the actual court decisions regarding treason.

In answer to your question, "Why go around the issue?" the answer is simple: Because it is a damned waste of time to pretend that a remedy is available when it CLEARLY, CLEARLY is not. That's a waste of everyone's time and it gets to a point that, when one keeps repeating an error that is clearly shown to be an error, it becomes pathological.

Crocket...you are a voice of reason.

Originally Posted by April

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

Why go around the issue? Bush is more or less selling this country out, which is treason. IF its not then please inform me otherwise. There is a government site and its on the white house site. I don't know how much more there needs to be to stop this, and call it what it is.

DITTO!!!!!

What a shock! The person who has played Don Quixote and wasted untold board space tilting at this windmill agrees with an absurd somment.

I'll tell you what - WHEN ANY OF YOU MEETS MY REPEATED CHALLENGE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE VIABLE BASIS FOR A CHARGE OF TREASON. I WILL BE RIGHT ON BOARD WITH YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF THESE DIRTBAGS ROT IN PRISON FOR THEIR MISDEEDS. UNTIL THAT TIME, YOU'RE JUST FLINGING MONKEY POOP.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by April

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

Why go around the issue? Bush is more or less selling this country out, which is treason. IF its not then please inform me otherwise. There is a government site and its on the white house site. I don't know how much more there needs to be to stop this, and call it what it is.

DITTO!!!!!

What a shock! The person who has played Don Quixote and wasted untold board space tilting at this windmill agrees with an absurd somment.

I'll tell you what - WHEN ANY OF YOU MEETS MY REPEATED CHALLENGE TO PROVIDE A SINGLE VIABLE BASIS FOR A CHARGE OF TREASON. I WILL BE RIGHT ON BOARD WITH YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF THESE DIRTBAGS ROT IN PRISON FOR THEIR MISDEEDS. UNTIL THAT TIME, YOU'RE JUST FLINGING MONKEY POOP.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by americangirl

Crocket...you are a voice of reason.

Thank you, americangirl. That's all I am trying to do. There is nothing worse than wasting time and resources on unwinnable battles. It's like children throwing rocks at the city gates rather than trying to find a hole in the wall.

Everyone should have FREEDOM of SPEECH, that is reasonable. I will not be changing the way I feel about issues or the way I SPEAK about issues for you or anyone else!!!!

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war".

Under English law effective during the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfitting and fornication with women in the royal family of the sort that would call into question the parentage of successors. One important distinction is that the encompassing the death species of treason was most used by the English government to silence political opposition and was expressly excluded by the authors. In fact, James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older British law, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act actually occurred.

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.



I guest I can't win this one, but I believe going around the people of the United states is against something. But I will stop before I get kicked off.

Originally Posted by Matthewcloseborders

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war".

Under English law effective during the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfitting and fornication with women in the royal family of the sort that would call into question the parentage of successors. One important distinction is that the encompassing the death species of treason was most used by the English government to silence political opposition and was expressly excluded by the authors. In fact, James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older British law, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act actually occurred.

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.



I guest I can't win this one, but I believe going around the people of the United states is against something. But I will stop before I get kicked off.

You're not going to get kicked off, and this is an important discussion, Matthew. If you look at the tiny handful of prosecutions for treason in the history of the US (which I have previously summarized), you will see that every conviction occurred as the result of either direct assistance to a declared enemy during wartime or armed insurrection within the borders of the US. Period. In this case, not only is there no declared enemy, but most of the nations from which the illegals are arriving, such as Mexico, are considered to be allies of the US.

The charge of treason simply will not stick.

I'm not trying to give you grief specifically, Matthew. I am trying to make you understand what is and is not a reasonable avenue for legal remedy and recourse.