Thread: It's Official: Mexican Trucks coming

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

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.

The reason we speak out is because it is a betrayal.............Our goverment is against us and we have the right to be angry.It feels like treason, no matter what the legal definition of the word is and almost all of us want BUSH gone. So your feelings are valid and you should never stop speaking out about what is important to you. You have the right to vent!

Originally Posted by April

Matthewcloseborders wrote:

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.

The reason we speak out is because it is a betrayal.............Our goverment is against us and we have the right to be angry.It feels like treason, no matter what the legal definition of the word is and almost all of us want BUSH gone. So your feelings are valid and you should never stop speaking out about what is important to you. You have the right to vent!

Venting is one thing. Passing off fantasy as fact is quite another. There comes a point that pressing fantasy just becomes ridiculous. If we're going to win this battle, we have to remain REASONABLE and to focus our resources in areas where we have a reasonable chance of achieving our goals.

And Arpil, while you may have a right to hold an opinion, you do not have the right to be free from having it demonstrated to be errant when it is blatantly so.

Again, I have nothing personal against you, but the dearth of reason associated with this wild treason/impeachment agenda is intellectually offensive and, in my opinion, does a disservice to the immigration control movement by making its adherents look irrational.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Thanks, I just thought that selling the country from under the peoples noses was. But I got reading wik in seen otherwise. I wish otherwise. I think it could very well be impeachable, but is there the 2/3rds in the senate to remove? There is a lot of cfr members in there. The worst part is who ever that takes over is likely to be another cfr.

Originally Posted by Matthewcloseborders

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Thanks, I just thought that selling the country from under the peoples noses was. But I got reading wik in seen otherwise. I wish otherwise. I think it could very well be impeachable, but is there the 2/3rds in the senate to remove? There is a lot of cfr members in there.

Exactly, Matthew. I dearly wish that we had a simple legal avenue for routing the paid off dirtbags who are selling us out, but the federal government has done a very good job of insulating itself from the dissatisfaction of the governed. There are avenues of remedy and recourse, but they are much more indirect than most of us would like.

CrocketsGhost wote:

Again, I have nothing personal against you, but the dearth of reason associated with this wild treason/impeachment agenda is intellectually offensive and, in my opinion, does a disservice to the immigration control movement by making its adherents look irrational.

AGAIN, I have the right to speak, the right to vent, the right to be an activist in the way I choose best for me. This is America. Once again WE can agree to disagree. There is no more to converse about.

Originally Posted by April

CrocketsGhost wote:

Again, I have nothing personal against you, but the dearth of reason associated with this wild treason/impeachment agenda is intellectually offensive and, in my opinion, does a disservice to the immigration control movement by making its adherents look irrational.

AGAIN, I have the right to speak, the right to vent, the right to be an activist in the way I choose best for me. This is America. Once again WE can agree to disagree. There is no more to converse about.

You also have an obligation to defend the opinions you espouse in a public forum. That is what honest debate is all about. For whatever reason, you absolutely refuse to factually defend your treason/impeachment rhetoric. One might even surmise that you have no defense of the rhetoric based upon its repetition without substantiation.