Thread: Treason - what is it?

Originally Posted by Judy

The definition of Treason is Betrayal, JAK.

It is Treason. And it is Prosecutable.

And every politician is subject to it.

And certain officials like the President and Vice President can be impeached for it at a much lower standard because they are not judged during an impeachment by the Judicial Branch ... they are Judged by the Political Legislative Branch.

If our Congressmen know that we want these Traitors impeached, I believe they will do it and it doesn't have to be for Treason ... the impeachment bill that has been introduced is to investigate wrongdoing associated with the Iraq War.

Pelosi as we know doesn't run the US House of Representatives. They've already defied her twice and they aren't even in their first 100 hours yet .. so her "impeachment is off the table" carries as much weight as her "we'll implement ALL the 911 recommendations".

Never in our history have Americans been so confused.

It's time to come out of the fog; cut to the chaste; boil it all down to what it really is and use our provisions our Founding Fathers gave US to stop it.

And if we can't choose to do that, then we may be doomed.

You are indulging fantasy at this point, Judy. The FACT is that treason, from a legal standpoint, is defined in Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Period. I understand that you don't like the definition, but I also understand that YOU firmly understand that Art. II, Sec. 3 is where the legal definition is found. You have addressed the fact and so you understand it. It is irrational to persist in pretending that the Constitution says anything other than what it says or that it has been interpreted in any way other than how it has been interpreted. Sewing confusion among other posters here is irresponsible and counterproductive.

Until we can change they way theyare allowed to campaign... it won't change.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BACK YOU ...YOU WON'T WIN. EVERY CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF AIR TIME AND MONEY TO SPEND ON THEIR CAMPAIGN. IT SHOULD ALL BE DIVIDED UP. THAT IS THE FAIR THING TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE OR THIS NATION.

Some of the congressmen have said that you have to start rasing money for the campaigns they day they hold office...in order to make the money they want to spend....it corrupt from day one!

Originally Posted by JAK

Until we can change they way theyare allowed to campaign... it won't change.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BACK YOU ...YOU WON'T WIN. EVERY CANDIDATE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF AIR TIME AND MONEY TO SPEND ON THEIR CAMPAIGN. IT SHOULD ALL BE DIVIDED UP. THAT IS THE FAIR THING TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE OR THIS NATION.

Some of the congressmen have said that you have to start rasing money for the campaigns they day they hold office...in order to make the money they want to spend....it corrupt from day one!

I think that we have seen that a well-organized grassroots campaign can succeed, especially for Representatives. It's just a matter of having the perseverence to pull it off.

[quote:10agtlr0]

You are indulging fantasy at this point, Judy. The FACT is that treason, from a legal standpoint, is defined in Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Period. I understand that you don't like the definition, but I also understand that YOU firmly understand that Art. II, Sec. 3 is where the legal definition is found. You have addressed the fact and so you understand it. It is irrational to persist in pretending that the Constitution says anything other than what it says or that it has been interpreted in any way other than how it has been interpreted. Sewing confusion among other posters here is irresponsible and counterproductive.[/quote:10agtlr0]

The Constitution says exactly what it says. It doesn't say there has to be a "declaration of war", does it? No, it doesn't. It says war. It doesn't say who "enemies" are does it? No, it doesn't, it says "their enemies". It doesn't say that Treason is only against a state does it? No, it doesn't. It says United States. It doesn't say "only during a war with a declaration of war against enemies the Traitors define" does it? No, it doesn't. It says "levying war" or "aiding their enemies".

There has never been a case against a top federal official for a conspiracy to end the United States has there? No, there hasn't. So, none of the cases heretofore apply to this case. Studying past cases for a situation that has never been tried is pointless.

This will be the Landmark Case of Impeachment and Removal that sets the standards for all future conduct of public officials with regards to foreign interests, foreign lobbyists, foreign governments, foreign trade, foreign nationals. This will be the Landmark Case of Treason that sets the standards for all future public allegiance to the affairs, people and sovereignty of the United States of America and once it is completed, it will be a glorious day of TraitorsBeGone because they will all be broke as they should be and in jail where they belong.

This is the United States.

WE are The Americans.

WE not only decide what happens here,

WE control what happens here.

We decide who the Traitors are and what to do with them.

We decide who our Enemies are and what to do with them.

We decide who we War with and when we Stop.

We decide who stays in our government and who doesn't.

It's time we started acting like The Americans we are instead of cowed beaten down little fish without a pond.

Now it's time to get on those phones Monday morning to Congress and demand impeachment and removal of these Traitors from the American White House; immediate deployment of ARMED TROOPS to our borders to secure them; and an end to this foreign invasion and sell out of our country to foreign interests.

Originally Posted by Judy

[quote:4l4meb6w]

You are indulging fantasy at this point, Judy. The FACT is that treason, from a legal standpoint, is defined in Art. III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Period. I understand that you don't like the definition, but I also understand that YOU firmly understand that Art. II, Sec. 3 is where the legal definition is found. You have addressed the fact and so you understand it. It is irrational to persist in pretending that the Constitution says anything other than what it says or that it has been interpreted in any way other than how it has been interpreted. Sewing confusion among other posters here is irresponsible and counterproductive.

The Constitution says exactly what it says. It doesn't say there has to be a "declaration of war", does it? No, it doesn't. It says war. It doesn't say who "enemies" are does it? No, it doesn't, it says "their enemies". It doesn't say that Treason is only against a state does it? No, it doesn't. It says United States. It doesn't say "only during a war with a declaration of war against enemies the Traitors define" does it? No, it doesn't. It says "levying war" or "aiding their enemies".

There has never been a case against a top federal official for a conspiracy to end the United States has there? No, there hasn't. So, none of the cases heretofore apply to this case. Studying past cases for a situation that has never been tried is pointless.

This will be the Landmark Case of Impeachment and Removal that sets the standards for all future conduct of public officials with regards to foreign interests, foreign lobbyists, foreign governments, foreign trade, foreign nationals. This will be the Landmark Case of Treason that sets the standards for all future public allegiance to the affairs, people and sovereignty of the United States of America and once it is completed, it will be a glorious day of TraitorsBeGone because they will all be broke as they should be and in jail where they belong.

This is the United States.

WE are The Americans.

WE not only decide what happens here,

WE control what happens here.

We decide who the Traitors are and what to do with them.

We decide who our Enemies are and what to do with them.

We decide who we War with and when we Stop.

We decide who stays in our government and who doesn't.

It's time we started acting like The Americans we are instead of cowed beaten down little fish without a pond.

Now it's time to get on those phones Monday morning to Congress and demand impeachment and removal of these Traitors from the American White House; immediate deployment of ARMED TROOPS to our borders to secure them; and an end to this foreign invasion and sell out of our country to foreign interests.

[/quote:4l4meb6w]
I didn't read past your first couple of sentences because you are repeating yourself. The Constitution says what it says and the existing body of law provides the stare decisis upon which modern jurisprudence rests. If you had an understanding of our legal system you would understand that judicial interpretation over the years clarifies and refines every law and constitutional provision. I provided for you the cases that have been successfully prosecuted for treason. I have broken down as precisely as is practical in a forum such as this one how those decisions clarify the specific acts that the Constitution defines as treason. I am dealing with reality and you are dealing with fantasy. It's that simple. If you don't believe me, go ask an attorney, or better yet, stop raving here and go and find a prosecutor who agrees with your fanciful interpretation. Oh, but that won't accomplish anything, will it? The President is immune for another couple of years. So float that theory past your Congressman, and see what he thinks about the odds of accomplishing an impeachment on the grounds of treason. Better yet, find the most partisan Congressman who most dearly hates the administration and see if you can get him or her to recommend articles of impeachment on the basis of treason. Unless it's a nutball like Shiela Jackson Lee, you'll either be laughed out of the office or politely ushered out, never to hear another word from their office.

No, but thank you for your suggestion. I'm going to direct my efforts to the individual who has already introduced impeachment legislation into the US House of Representatives ... a year ago, who already now has 37 Congressional sponsors for that legislation, and who in January will be Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

But, I'll be sure to pass on to them your opinion that they are a bunch of "nutballs".

Originally Posted by Judy

No, but thank you for your suggestion. I'm going to direct my efforts to the individual who has already introduced impeachment legislation into the US House of Representatives ... a year ago, who already now has 37 Congressional sponsors for that legislation, and who in January will be Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

But, I'll be sure to pass on to them your opinion that they are a bunch of "nutballs".

Please provide me with a list of the sponsors and I will tell them myself.

I was hoping that some of the other folks who had previously made comments regarding treason would weigh in. No takers?

It's kinda of late. Maybe you'll get some action tomorrow.