A Good Definition of Treason

[maineman]

No where does the Constitution say that treason can only be committed knowingly or with intent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article III.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same OVERT Act, or on Confession in open Court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

one would think that the word OVERT in Article III, Section 3, clearly disproves your previous allegation

 

[Adam's Apple]

this sort of response sheds much more heat than light....

Heat, huh? Well, if the Dems should take back the White House in 2008, I'm sure we will be discussing this very post again.

You say that the "people" spoke loud and clear in November. Well, 40% of them decided to give the Democrats a try because there was no other alternative available to them. We'll see what they have to say in 2008. I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome of that election if I were you.

 

[maineman]

Heat, huh? Well, if the Dems should take back the White House in 2008, I'm sure we will be discussing this very post again.

You say that the "people" spoke loud and clear in November. Well, 40% of them decided to give the Democrats a try because there was no other alternative available to them. We'll see what they have to say in 2008. I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome of that election if I were you.

all the exit polling data indicates that the war in Iraq was the primary issue for voters. It certainly doesn't look like THAT will be going away anytime before '08, does it?

 

[Adam's Apple]

one would think that the word OVERT in Article III, Section 3, clearly disproves your previous allegation

The work of Congress is very OVERT, wouldn't you say? Maybe you need to read Kraft's article.

 

[maineman]

The work of Congress is very OVERT, wouldn't you say? Maybe you need to read Kraft's article.

excuse me...did you or did you NOT say, "No where does the Constitution say that treason can only be committed knowingly or with intent."????

 

[glockmail]

1. my initial statement, many many posts ago, was the the US has never really leaned hard on Israel and delivered any negative consequences.... and your reply was that Al Gore, in 2000 claimed that Bush senior had TRIED to do that. It reminds me of an old Lyle Lovett song, "He wasn't good, but he had good intentions". You make my case and refuse to admit it... If I appear to be spiraling it is because I am following your spinning as you attempt to run away from your own words.

2. says who? glock the religious scholar and expert on Islam, Judaism and Christianity? whatever, sweetheart! lol

3. My mind is quite open. I just am able to discern the difference between opinion and conjecture on one hand, and fact on the other... an ability you obviously do not possess.

1. I gave you one example. As your tactic is to simply dismiss all sources that don't agree with your preconceived opinions, its really not worth arguing with you. You simply don't have the capacity for intelligent discourse.
2. The Bible and the Koran say so. It’s rather simple and doesn’t require much in the way of interpretation, sweet cheeks.
3. As I said earlier…

 

[maineman]

1. I gave you one example. As your tactic is to simply dismiss all sources that don't agree with your preconceived opinions, its really not worth arguing with you. You simply don't have the capacity for intelligent discourse.
2. The Bible and the Koran say so. It’s rather simple and doesn’t require much in the way of interpretation, sweet cheeks.
3. As I said earlier…

1. If you have any other examples of the US - even to this day - really leaning on Israel and , for example, getting them to actually stop building settlements in the west bank, please offer it up. It seems to me, that if you were going to give an example that proved YOUR case, that you would not pick one that proved MINE instead.

2. But you say that the more draconian sections of the Old Testament don't apply to contemporary Jews and Christians but, somehow, the Koran must be taken literally by all contemporary muslims. And please...if that IS, in fact, how your believe, can you explain how we, as Americans can allow muslims to live in our country and not preemptively kill them all right now as an inevitable act of self defense?

3. If you want to prove something, don't give me your opinion or the opinion of anyone else. That really is that simple. I will always respect facts. Bring 'em on if you got 'em.

 

[glockmail]

1. If you have any other examples of the US - even to this day - really leaning on Israel and , for example, getting them to actually stop building settlements in the west bank, please offer it up. It seems to me, that if you were going to give an example that proved YOUR case, that you would not pick one that proved MINE instead.

2. But you say that the more draconian sections of the Old Testament don't apply to contemporary Jews and Christians but, somehow, the Koran must be taken literally by all contemporary muslims. And please...if that IS, in fact, how your believe, can you explain how we, as Americans can allow muslims to live in our country and not preemptively kill them all right now as an inevitable act of self defense?

3. If you want to prove something, don't give me your opinion or the opinion of anyone else. That really is that simple. I will always respect facts. Bring 'em on if you got 'em.

1. I don't play Lucy and the football.
2. Again, the sections of the OT you refer to are history. The sections of the Koran I refer to are commandments. If you want to go around killing Muslims be my guest.
3. See 1 above.

 

[maineman]

1. I don't play Lucy and the football.
2. Again, the sections of the OT you refer to are history. The sections of the Koran I refer to are commandments. If you want to go around killing Muslims be my guest.
3. See 1 above.

you run away when you're beaten and beaten badly

you obviously have met very few, if any, real muslims in your life.

I think we're all through. now go play silly word games with someone else.... you bore me to tears.

 

[glockmail]

you run away when you're beaten and beaten badly

you obviously have met very few, if any, real muslims in your life.

I think we're all through. now go play silly word games with someone else.... you bore me to tears.

Bad form. And I've known quite a few Muslims. There is a line in the Koran which tells them to act nice and get along until there is enough of them to attack and kill.

 

[maineman]

Bad form. And I've known quite a few Muslims. There is a line in the Koran which tells them to act nice and get along until there is enough of them to attack and kill.

I am sorry you think it is bad form... I, qute frankly, do not believe you that you have known quite a few muslims. I think you are a poseur....and regardless, this banter bores me. You have nothing but talking points to regurgitate and I could get that listening to Hannity on the way home from work.

 

[Edward]

Let us look at the evidence:

"First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor." - Alexander Hamilton.

Here, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that the Constitution intended the President to only have an occasional command of the part of the National Guard that Congress calls into the service of the United States. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to call up the National Guard and to set the number of Guardsmen who are to fight in behalf of the United States. The Constitution clearly states that Congress is "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" and Hamilton states that the President would "have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union."

He made it a point to compare the role of a monarch who had continous command of the militia with that of the President who would only have command of the part that Congress calls into service of the United States. So the argument put forward by the President that as commander in chief that he has the authority to send more troops to Iraq is not correct in respect to the National Guard. The authority to determine the number of National Guardsmen currently in actual service of the United States does not rest with the President as Congress has that authority.

"Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that the President's authority over the army and navy is nominal and would amount to nothing more than "the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy;" and that he would not have the power of "DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would apertain to the legislature." Here he makes it even more clear that the President would not have the authority to raise or regulate fleets and armies. What does he mean? It is quite clear that he uses the term regulating in a similar context as he uses the term raising. When it becomes clear that regulating at that time was seen as deciding where troops would be sent it becomes clear that the Constitution vests the power to decide where troops are going to be sent in the Congress and not the President because it was a part of the authority of Congress to declare war. The fear was so great that the President would have the role of a King when it came to war that Alexander Hamilton expressed the sentiment when referring to the King and President that "the one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority."

Based on what Hamilton has said and what the Constitution provides the Congress has the authority to direct by legislative provision where the troops are to be sent as part of its authority to declare war, raise armies, regulate them, and finally to provide for governing them. The President has made it clear that he intends to ignore Congress and send 20,000 more troops to Iraq and to upsurp the authority of Congress to raise and regulate armies. If he thinks he is King George he is sadly mistaken and Congress needs to stand up and to make it clear that Bush will not upsurp their authority to direct where our troops are to be sent as this is the power to declare war, and to raise and regulate armies, navies and the militia and that it rests with them. Every member of Congress has been sworn to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic and that includes George W. Bush who has committed treason against the United States (aka the representatives of the individual states that he is telling to go to h-ll).

 

[glockmail]

I am sorry you think it is bad form... I, qute frankly, do not believe you that you have known quite a few muslims. I think you are a poseur....and regardless, this banter bores me. You have nothing but talking points to regurgitate and I could get that listening to Hannity on the way home from work.

I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth.

 

[maineman]

I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth.

youir opinion is hardly the "truth".

now do us both a favor and go work on your eyebrows or something.

 

[glockmail]

...
Here, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that the Constitution intended....

It really doesn't matter what Hamilton said, but what was signed and ratified.

 

[glockmail]

youir opinion is hardly the "truth".

now do us both a favor and go work on your eyebrows or something.

It's not opinion, it's truth, and you, boy, can't handle it. You also appear to have a problem with women for some reason.

 

[maineman]

It's not opinion, it's truth, and you, boy, can't handle it. You also appear to have a problem with women for some reason.

when you post oped pieces from Weekly Standard and claim their unattributed assertions are "truth", you get nothing but rapidly diminishing respect from me.

 

[Annie]

when you post oped pieces from Weekly Standard and claim their unattributed assertions are "truth", you get nothing but rapidly diminishing respect from me.

I'll not agree with all Glock posts, but that hit on source is a red herring.

 

[Edward]

It really doesn't matter what Hamilton said, but what was signed and ratified.

Actually it does because George W. Bush and his supporters are liars and traitors who twist the Constitution to what they want it to say and not what it does in fact say. So with that said I will stand behind Hamilton and say to Bush and those who agree with him, "stop being traitors, and stop sending our sons and daughters to die for your opinions." The President is upsurping the authority of Congress, and violating the Constitution and it is the duty of Congress to defend the Constitution. If another revolution is necessary to stop the President from exercising the powers of a King than so be it because our representatives in Congress have the right to decide where and when we fight and not the traitor who lives in the executive mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course the President has betrayed this country and has betrayed our elected representatives. I know what the Constitution says but Bush and those who agree with him don't get to decide that it gives him power to do something when it does not.

The President is ignoring my representatives and I didn't even vote for him and I sure as hell don't care that a bunch of people voted for him when he is ignoring my representatives as King George did to those who cried out for liberty in 1776. How many more innocent Americans who disagree with this war will have to die for the opinions of those who agree with Bush. Will Senator Webb's son who is in Iraq and who opposes this war as does his father have to die as his father cries out, "I didn't even have a say in whether we would go to war or how the troops would be regulated because the President told me and the people who voted for me to go to hell as he was going to do what he wants and ignore the people's representatives."

 

[Annie]

Actually it does because George W. Bush and his supporters are liars and traitors who twist the Constitution to what they want it to say and not what it does in fact say. So with that said I will stand behind Hamilton and say to Bush and those who agree with him, "stop being traitors, and stop sending our sons and daughters to die for your opinions." The President is upsurping the authority of Congress, and violating the Constitution and it is the duty of Congress to defend the Constitution against its enemies including George W. Bush. If another revolution is necessary to stop the President from exercising the powers of a King than so be it because our representatives in Congress have the right to decide where and when we fight and not the traitor who lives in the executive mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course the President has betrayed this country and has betrayed our elected representatives. I know what the Constitution says and that it only matters what it says but Bush and those who agree with him don't get to decide that it gives him power to do something when it does not. The President is ignoring my representatives and I didn't even vote for him and that means that he is ignoring my representatives and I sure as hell don't care that a bunch of people voted for him when he is ignoring my representatives as King George did to those who cried out for liberty in 1776. How many more innocent Americans who disagree with this war will have to die for the opinions of those who agree with Bush. Will Senator Webb's son who is in Iraq and who opposes this war as does his father have to die as his father cries out, "I didn't even have a say in whether we would go to war or how the troops would be regulated because the President told me and the people who voted for me to go to hell as he was going to do what he wants and ignore the people's representatives."

What about those before or after Bush? Never before? No future application?