An interesting fact about treason

[Sheldon]

I didn't pick the tense. The people who wrote it did. They could have said the government of the United States which refers to the federal government which but they said 'them' which refers to the individual states that compose the union. Why would they not be precise in a legal document? How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

That point has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread, iFail.

They don't because they know they will have to go to court one day so they use precise language

so it can be interpret the way they want it to be interpreted it.

The first half of that sentence contradicts the second half. Precise language is language not meant to be interpreted however someone wants to interpret it!

 

[ihopehefails]

I didn't pick the tense. The people who wrote it did. They could have said the government of the United States which refers to the federal government which but they said 'them' which refers to the individual states that compose the union. Why would they not be precise in a legal document? How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

That point has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread, iFail.

They don't because they know they will have to go to court one day so they use precise language

so it can be interpret the way they want it to be interpreted it.

The first half of that sentence contradicts the second half. Precise language is language not meant to be interpreted however someone wants to interpret it!

Isn't that the precise point of precise langauge? To get the interpretation you want so their is no misunderstandings about the message you wanted to communicate in the text.

 

[hortysir]

The phrase "the United States" was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States".[15]

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah yeah. Wiki is a sucky source as sources go.

True enough.

But sometimes they get things right and even provide a short-cut for sourcing such matters. Just look at the goldmine in footnote 15: Language Log: Life in these, uh, this United States

That was one freekin awesome post, Liability

From 1776 to 1789 the United States were a confederation; after 1789 it was a federal nation. The passage from plural to singular was accomplished, although it took some people a good while to realize the fact. The German language has a neat way of distinguishing between a loose confederation and a federal union. It calls the former a Staatenbund and the latter a Bundesstaat. So in English, if we liked, we might call the confederation a Band-of-States and the federal union a Banded-State. There are two points especially in our Constitution which transformed our country from a Band-of-States into a Banded-State. [etc.]

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't pick the tense. The people who wrote it did. They could have said the government of the United States which refers to the federal government which but they said 'them' which refers to the individual states that compose the union. Why would they not be precise in a legal document? How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

That point has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread, iFail.

so it can be interpret the way they want it to be interpreted it.

The first half of that sentence contradicts the second half. Precise language is language not meant to be interpreted however someone wants to interpret it!

Isn't that the precise point of precise langauge? To get the interpretation you want so their is no misunderstandings about the message you wanted to communicate in the text.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I figured 'they' meant lawyers arguing over a contract in court, each trying to interpret the contract their own way. I guess the irony here is that the language used in defining precise language was misinterpreted because of the third-person plural.

Liabailty laid out the whole argument pretty well. It's a change in language; people didn't refer to the United States in the singular back then.

 

[ihopehefails]

That point has been addressed ad nauseum in this thread, iFail.



The first half of that sentence contradicts the second half. Precise language is language not meant to be interpreted however someone wants to interpret it!

Isn't that the precise point of precise langauge? To get the interpretation you want so their is no misunderstandings about the message you wanted to communicate in the text.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I figured 'they' meant lawyers arguing over a contract in court, each trying to interpret the contract their own way. I guess the irony here is that the language used in defining precise language was misinterpreted because of the third-person plural.

Liabailty laid out the whole argument pretty well. It's a change in language; people didn't refer to the United States in the singular back then.

What difference does that make? When someone signs a contract the meaning stays the same. It does not change over time because to do so would alter the terms that both parties agreed to. The constitution refers to States in the plural which refers to the collection of states and not the whole nation. The treason clause even says that treason is an act against 'them' which refers to the states themselves and not the nation.

 

[George Costanza]

How many lawyers do you know write a legal document in such a way to substitute functional language for fancy language?

 

[jillian]

Isn't that the precise point of precise langauge? To get the interpretation you want so their is no misunderstandings about the message you wanted to communicate in the text.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I figured 'they' meant lawyers arguing over a contract in court, each trying to interpret the contract their own way. I guess the irony here is that the language used in defining precise language was misinterpreted because of the third-person plural.

Liabailty laid out the whole argument pretty well. It's a change in language; people didn't refer to the United States in the singular back then.

What difference does that make? When someone signs a contract the meaning stays the same. It does not change over time because to do so would alter the terms that both parties agreed to. The constitution refers to States in the plural which refers to the collection of states and not the whole nation. The treason clause even says that treason is an act against 'them' which refers to the states themselves and not the nation.

it's not that the meaning 'changes'... it's that people can disagree about the meaning.

you need to stop repeating your incorrect assertions after you've been corrected by people who actually understand the concepts.

no one tells you how to clean bathrooms ...

you shouldn't try to discuss what law is until you actually learn something about it

 

[Bezukhov]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort.

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

 

[rdean]

Just ask Sarah Palin. She can tell us all about treason. She only needs to ask her secessionist husband, Todd (we are not American) Palin.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...-america-arrest-for-sedition.html#post2402018

 

[Liability]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort.

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

 

[goldcatt]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort.

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

Are you kidding? It's one of your "own" who's been advocating bringing back Sedition as a criminal offense. Just can't get over that one. Insanity isn't a partisan trait, I'm afraid.

 

[Liability]

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

Are you kidding? It's one of your "own" who's been advocating bringing back Sedition as a criminal offense. Just can't get over that one. Insanity isn't a partisan trait, I'm afraid.

But the uber liberals hate the first amendment when it is one of their lot who is on the receiving end of criticism.

The issue posed was the one of criminalizing the criticism of government. That is what statist liberals favor, by and large. Conservatives, for the most part, have no problem with criticism of government. We tend not to be fans of overly graspy government. We leave statism to the libs.

 

[goldcatt]

Nah. With luck pretty soon we'll toss those First Amendment loathing liberals, socialists and Marxists the hell OUT of office and we won't need to "worry about" such obviously unConstitutional problems.

Are you kidding? It's one of your "own" who's been advocating bringing back Sedition as a criminal offense. Just can't get over that one. Insanity isn't a partisan trait, I'm afraid.

But the uber liberals hate the first amendment when it is one of their lot who is on the receiving end of criticism.

The issue posed was the one of criminalizing the criticism of government. That is what statist liberals favor, by and large. Conservatives, for the most part, have no problem with criticism of government. We tend not to be fans of overly graspy government. We leave statism to the libs.

I was under the impression the issue posed was the definition of treason, which is and has always been action and not speech. Criticism of the government is not even close to treason and frankly I've never heard anybody of any consequence left or right argue that it should be considered as such. Morons on blogs and message boards maybe, but those morons are on the extreme fringes of both sides. Hence my point, insanity is not a partisan trait.

 

[Liability]

Are you kidding? It's one of your "own" who's been advocating bringing back Sedition as a criminal offense. Just can't get over that one. Insanity isn't a partisan trait, I'm afraid.

But the uber liberals hate the first amendment when it is one of their lot who is on the receiving end of criticism.

The issue posed was the one of criminalizing the criticism of government. That is what statist liberals favor, by and large. Conservatives, for the most part, have no problem with criticism of government. We tend not to be fans of overly graspy government. We leave statism to the libs.

I was under the impression the issue posed was the definition of treason, which is and has always been action and not speech. Criticism of the government is not even close to treason and frankly I've never heard anybody of any consequence left or right argue that it should be considered as such. Morons on blogs and message boards maybe, but those morons are on the extreme fringes of both sides. Hence my point, insanity is not a partisan trait.

Your impression was a misimpression. What was SAID was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Bezukhov

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

It was that to which my post was responsive.

 

[goldcatt]

But the uber liberals hate the first amendment when it is one of their lot who is on the receiving end of criticism.

The issue posed was the one of criminalizing the criticism of government. That is what statist liberals favor, by and large. Conservatives, for the most part, have no problem with criticism of government. We tend not to be fans of overly graspy government. We leave statism to the libs.

I was under the impression the issue posed was the definition of treason, which is and has always been action and not speech. Criticism of the government is not even close to treason and frankly I've never heard anybody of any consequence left or right argue that it should be considered as such. Morons on blogs and message boards maybe, but those morons are on the extreme fringes of both sides. Hence my point, insanity is not a partisan trait.

Your impression was a misimpression. What was SAID was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Bezukhov

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

It was that to which my post was responsive.

Which terms are taken directly from the Constitutional definition of "Treason".

I understand what you're saying, but Sedition and Treason are two different crimes, and two different issues. Treason is the Act of levying war or the Act of providing aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. And treason is a crime in the US, obviously. Criticism of government or even using speech to attempt to stir up action against government is sedition, which hasn't been a crime in the US for more than 200 years.

 

[Liability]

I was under the impression the issue posed was the definition of treason, which is and has always been action and not speech. Criticism of the government is not even close to treason and frankly I've never heard anybody of any consequence left or right argue that it should be considered as such. Morons on blogs and message boards maybe, but those morons are on the extreme fringes of both sides. Hence my point, insanity is not a partisan trait.

Your impression was a misimpression. What was SAID was:

Quote: Originally Posted by Bezukhov

Rather than worry about which group of crooks, the States or the Feds, that one might perchance commit treasonous acts towards; worry about how in the immediate future the terms "levying War" and "Aid and Comfort" will be more loosely defined, and include any criticsm of any government actions.

It was that to which my post was responsive.

Which terms are taken directly from the Constitutional definition of "Treason".

I understand what you're saying, but Sedition and Treason are two different crimes, and two different issues. Treason is the Act of levying war or the Act of providing aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. And treason is a crime in the US, obviously. Criticism of government or even using speech to attempt to stir up action against government is sedition, which hasn't been a crime in the US for more than 200 years.

I already know what both Treason is and what Sedition is.

And for the most part, sedition got wiped away as a crime because it was politically abused in violation of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it ought to not be a crime to urge the overthrow of the US government by force, arms and violence.

What should NOT be a crime is the mere verbal act of criticizing the Government or the urging of a change in government via the ballot or via any other legal non-violent means.

For example, I think the Obama Administration is a travesty, He is without a doubt the worst President in U.S. history and more damaging to this Republic than any other POLITICAL figure in U.S> history. He should be chastied wherever he goes and wherever he speaks. His every word SHOULD be placed under a microscope and all that he is up to should be challenged and defeated. He SHOULD get his political ass spanked in the voting booth come November 2012.

I doubt we could get him impeached because his wild and reckless behavior falls short of high crimes or misdemeanors (and there are too many liberal Democratics and similarly inclined fraudulent politicians in office to ever go the impeachment route against President Obama even if his behavior did fall to those depths). But we can and damn well SHOULD oust him from Office at the end of his first (and hopefully last-ever) term as President.

Nothing I just said isn't fully protected by the First Amendment. Some liberal Democratics might wish it were otherwise.

 

[goldcatt]

Your impression was a misimpression. What was SAID was:

It was that to which my post was responsive.

Which terms are taken directly from the Constitutional definition of "Treason".

I understand what you're saying, but Sedition and Treason are two different crimes, and two different issues. Treason is the Act of levying war or the Act of providing aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. And treason is a crime in the US, obviously. Criticism of government or even using speech to attempt to stir up action against government is sedition, which hasn't been a crime in the US for more than 200 years.

I already know what both Treason is and what Sedition is.

And for the most part, sedition got wiped away as a crime because it was politically abused in violation of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it ought to not be a crime to urge the overthrow of the US government by force, arms and violence.

What should NOT be a crime is the mere verbal act of criticizing the Government or the urging of a change in government via the ballot or via any other legal non-violent means.

For example, I think the Obama Administration is a travesty, He is without a doubt the worst President in U.S. history and more damaging to this Republic than any other POLITICAL figure in U.S> history. He should be chastied wherever he goes and wherever he speaks. His every word SHOULD be placed under a microscope and all that he is up to should be challenged and defeated. He SHOULD get his political ass spanked in the voting booth come November 2012.

I doubt we could get him impeached because his wild and reckless behavior falls short of high crimes or misdemeanors (and there are too many liberal Democratics and similarly inclined fraudulent politicians in office to ever go the impeachment route against President Obama even if his behavior did fall to those depths). But we can and damn well SHOULD oust him from Office at the end of his first (and hopefully last-ever) term as President.

Nothing I just said isn't fully protected by the First Amendment. Some liberal Democratics might wish it were otherwise.

I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak for the Democrats on the board or the Party of course.

I am for message board purposes a "liberal", and of course I disagree with most (not all, but most) of what you say about Obama. But again, I fail to see any but the kookiest of the fringenuts left and right even hint at wanting statements like yours to be removed from the First's protection. We may disagree over certain issues involving the breadth and nature of Free Speech, but anybody rational on either side of the aisle knows the prime reason the Speech clause exists is to protect political expression.

I'm totally against reinstituting sedition as a crime, BTW. I'm fine with the status quo and Brandenburg as the rule. Wanna duke it out?

 

[Liability]

Which terms are taken directly from the Constitutional definition of "Treason".

I understand what you're saying, but Sedition and Treason are two different crimes, and two different issues. Treason is the Act of levying war or the Act of providing aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. And treason is a crime in the US, obviously. Criticism of government or even using speech to attempt to stir up action against government is sedition, which hasn't been a crime in the US for more than 200 years.

I already know what both Treason is and what Sedition is.

And for the most part, sedition got wiped away as a crime because it was politically abused in violation of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it ought to not be a crime to urge the overthrow of the US government by force, arms and violence.

What should NOT be a crime is the mere verbal act of criticizing the Government or the urging of a change in government via the ballot or via any other legal non-violent means.

For example, I think the Obama Administration is a travesty, He is without a doubt the worst President in U.S. history and more damaging to this Republic than any other POLITICAL figure in U.S> history. He should be chastied wherever he goes and wherever he speaks. His every word SHOULD be placed under a microscope and all that he is up to should be challenged and defeated. He SHOULD get his political ass spanked in the voting booth come November 2012.

I doubt we could get him impeached because his wild and reckless behavior falls short of high crimes or misdemeanors (and there are too many liberal Democratics and similarly inclined fraudulent politicians in office to ever go the impeachment route against President Obama even if his behavior did fall to those depths). But we can and damn well SHOULD oust him from Office at the end of his first (and hopefully last-ever) term as President.

Nothing I just said isn't fully protected by the First Amendment. Some liberal Democratics might wish it were otherwise.

I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak for the Democrats on the board or the Party of course.

I am for message board purposes a "liberal", and of course I disagree with most (not all, but most) of what you say about Obama. But again, I fail to see any but the kookiest of the fringenuts left and right even hint at wanting statements like yours to be removed from the First's protection. We may disagree over certain issues involving the breadth and nature of Free Speech, but anybody rational on either side of the aisle knows the prime reason the Speech clause exists is to protect political expression.

I'm totally against reinstituting sedition as a crime, BTW. I'm fine with the status quo and Brandenburg as the rule. Wanna duke it out?

Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?

LOL!

I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.

If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?

'Splain eet to me.

 

[goldcatt]

I already know what both Treason is and what Sedition is.

And for the most part, sedition got wiped away as a crime because it was politically abused in violation of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it ought to not be a crime to urge the overthrow of the US government by force, arms and violence.

What should NOT be a crime is the mere verbal act of criticizing the Government or the urging of a change in government via the ballot or via any other legal non-violent means.

For example, I think the Obama Administration is a travesty, He is without a doubt the worst President in U.S. history and more damaging to this Republic than any other POLITICAL figure in U.S> history. He should be chastied wherever he goes and wherever he speaks. His every word SHOULD be placed under a microscope and all that he is up to should be challenged and defeated. He SHOULD get his political ass spanked in the voting booth come November 2012.

I doubt we could get him impeached because his wild and reckless behavior falls short of high crimes or misdemeanors (and there are too many liberal Democratics and similarly inclined fraudulent politicians in office to ever go the impeachment route against President Obama even if his behavior did fall to those depths). But we can and damn well SHOULD oust him from Office at the end of his first (and hopefully last-ever) term as President.

Nothing I just said isn't fully protected by the First Amendment. Some liberal Democratics might wish it were otherwise.

I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak for the Democrats on the board or the Party of course.

I am for message board purposes a "liberal", and of course I disagree with most (not all, but most) of what you say about Obama. But again, I fail to see any but the kookiest of the fringenuts left and right even hint at wanting statements like yours to be removed from the First's protection. We may disagree over certain issues involving the breadth and nature of Free Speech, but anybody rational on either side of the aisle knows the prime reason the Speech clause exists is to protect political expression.

I'm totally against reinstituting sedition as a crime, BTW. I'm fine with the status quo and Brandenburg as the rule. Wanna duke it out?

Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?

LOL!

I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.

If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?

'Splain eet to me.

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

 

[Liability]

I'm not a Democrat, so I can't speak for the Democrats on the board or the Party of course.

I am for message board purposes a "liberal", and of course I disagree with most (not all, but most) of what you say about Obama. But again, I fail to see any but the kookiest of the fringenuts left and right even hint at wanting statements like yours to be removed from the First's protection. We may disagree over certain issues involving the breadth and nature of Free Speech, but anybody rational on either side of the aisle knows the prime reason the Speech clause exists is to protect political expression.

I'm totally against reinstituting sedition as a crime, BTW. I'm fine with the status quo and Brandenburg as the rule. Wanna duke it out?

Wanna duke out some academic debate over Sedition laws?

LOL!

I have been known to be willing to waste time on even relatively inconsequential stuff. But that's too silly (as waste of times go) for even me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure anybody can really divine what incitations to violence (with regard to advocating the overthrow of the United States government) constitute ones likely to incite IMMINENT violence versus those that may incite delayed violence. I'm also not exactly clear why the SCOTUS thinks that's a distinction that matters in terms of valid First Amendment analysis.

If you incite violence, but it isn't likely to be imminent, but is instead likely to be delayed, why should you not be subject to a sedition law?

'Splain eet to me.

Party pooper.

Sedition laws are anathema to the First Amendment for one thing, and for another are far too prone to political manipulation and abuse. Would you trust a Democratic Congress and President to write, pass and sign a sedition law defining what speech is "inciting" violence against the government? Would a Democrat trust a Republican Congress and President to do the same? Be honest here.

If you're not sure anybody can divine what speech is likely to cause delayed violence, how can a law be drafted defining exactly what that is and a prosecution have the ability to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? There will always be doubt as to what speech "could" have an effect on what nutter out there. Should it all then be criminalized if the government deems it "could" lead to violence down the road? If it could incite a reasonable person? If it could incite a nutcase living in a bunker? In the context of the First Amendment that's absurd.

Excuse me, but bullshit!

Sedition laws are far from anathema to the First Amendment.

That's a nonsensical thing to say.

There is not a rational view of the First Amendment that protects speech designed to incite the violent overthrow of the U.S unless you happen to imagine that the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

And, if one is attempting to incite the violence associated with any effort to overthrow the government, then whether it's imminent or something which might be delayed until next week or next month is a distinction with no meaningful difference.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the concept, but the damn SCOTUS is fully capable of making idiotic decisions.

Don't any of you libs grasp the real intent of the First Amendment?

sheesh.