The "T" Word.
Treason, noun: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
Collectivist Jay Michaelson rends his garments, gnashes his teeth and wails, "Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason?"
In other words, the majority is arrogant, unrestrained, and thus not to be respected. It has an “extravagant conception of judicial supremacy.” “Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role.” And “The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it.” Why not just tell the Religious Right to buy pitchforks and blowtorches?
"Pitchforks and blowtorches?" Pitchforks and torches, perhaps. These are the hallmarks of peasant mobs. But blowtorches? Of course, blowtorches are often used by the secret police agencies of collectivist dictatorships as interrogation tools, so perhaps he's just falling back on the familiar.
Count De Monet - Sir, the peasants are revolting!
King Louis - You said it. They stink on ice.
-- History of the World, Part One.
But, I don't think we need a Supreme Court justice to tell us to buy pitchforks and torches, if that's what he means. Besides, that's so 16th Century (although he betrays himself with this insulting allusion to the religious folks of this country as peasantry). Today's peasants are more likely to use .30-06 deer rifles with much greater direct effect upon the tyrants' continued access to oxygen. Nor do we need anyone to tell us that this past week's events constitute the dictionary definition of treason to the Founders' Republic.
Of course the Founders, who were themselves considered traitors by the King for mere "treasonable utterances," were very careful to limit the meaning of the term in the Constitution:
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. (Emphasis supplied, MBV) -- Free Legal Dictionary.
This definition has not stopped the collectivists from calling US traitors and demanding we be punished for simple free speech. See: "GOP Tea Party Traitors to the Constitution Must Be Prosecuted to the Fullest Extent of the Law" and "Robert Reich to Tea Party: Americans Don't Like Traitors to Our System of Government" and Tea Party Traitors. I have been personally labeled as a "traitor to his country" by collectivists of all stripes from communists to Nazis over the past 20 years. I am, I suppose, a traitor to THEIR country, but not to the Founders' Republic. The same cannot be said of them.
Which brings me back to that definition of Constitutional treason above: "Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results." There is no doubt that our collectivist enemies are engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and the rule of law it codifies. As I have said and written many times, the Founders would declare them to be domestic enemies of the Constitution. It is they who are the revolutionaries in rebellion against the Founders' Republic. And there is no doubt that they seek, by force of arms if necessary, to accomplish their purpose. It is perhaps ironic that they have, by their successful, infinitely patient sedition, achieved control over the government's arms to work their conspiracy upon the liberty, property and lives of the people. I'm not sure the Founders expected that when they crafted the Constitution but it is nonetheless true.
So, who are the "traitors," them or us? That will be decided by the outcome of the civil war they seek to start.
Traitor list's are being printed and disseminated for when the time comes to take out the trash, it will be handled efficiently and promptly. Hopefully they're unborn will survive, however that will be up, to them.
Was telling a friend about a recent visit to our state legislature in North Carolina, where one of our leaders of our state gun rights group saw a state rep. walk by with his entourage in tow. Friend reminds me that we call a group of birds a "flock" and a group of cattle a "herd", so there must be name for a group of politicians. Ah, yes, there it is: a "treason" of politicians.
I'm so stealing that. Henceforth, the group name for multiple politicians is a "treason."
It is arguable that there is no such thing as treason except for those who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The reason is that save for those who actually signed the document, the Constitution does not constitute a voluntary contractual binding agreement. I'm quite certain nobody ever asked me to agree to it, and even if for the sake of argument we assume that I did so agree, the counterparty has repeatedly violated multiple clauses of that contract, thus rendering it null and void.
Recommended reading: Lysander Spooner No Treason (1867).
My list of traitors includes the entire present administration (executive, justice, state department, and all the regulatory alphabet agencies), 6 members of SCOTUS (you know which ones), all 535 members of congress (minus about a dozen members), the entire state government of Kommiecticut (minus a few select good members of the legislature). Add to the all the other blue states and there won't be enough real estate for the mass graves. I say grind `em up into fertilizer.
Oh, darn. I was going to leave comments on those two articles telling the authors that we WERE prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But alas, comments closed. I wanted to check in, see how the cases were coming along. Guess I'll catch up later. When the trials start. (Only half joking.)
Dear Uncle Al: You are correct. The Constitution is not a contract. It is, however, LAW.
Treason doth never prosper,
what's the reason?
For if it prosper,
none dare call it Treason. -- John Harington 1561 - 1612
The mental gymnastics you have to engage in to reconcile a desire for DC to "follow the Constitution" except when it "follows the Constitution," continues to amaze me.
When it comes to matters of maintaining a government that respects traditional notions of individual liberty, the problem the citizens of the 50 states have, and have always had, is the Constitution.
No reasonable person can look at the powers it gave DC -the power to tax, to regulate interstate trade, and to provide for the general welfare - and come away thinking that it was supposed to have produced a small, responsive, liberty-loving government.
For crying outloud the Anti-Federalists (huge hint right there) had to practically start another war to get the Bill of Rights added to the USCON...the list of individual rights and the power of the States was not originally a part of the document but nevemind that!
Nope. Just keep on complaining the Constitution's Supreme Court keeps applying constitutional Amendments to constitutionally-enacted laws created by the Constitution's own Congress and pretend the common denominator is anything but the USCON itself.
Perhaps stripping the USCON of those three powers, which have produced in excess of 99% of all federal laws, and there might be a chance for something resembling a Free State.
But why risk it? Let's "nuke it from orbit" as the proverb goes...and then replace it with the Articles of Confederation if you insist that the 50 states *need* a federal government.
So let me get this straight...
The opinion of a majority (a narrow one) of the SCOTUS should absolutely be respected and obeyed, and any suggestion otherwise is treasonous, inhuman and icky.
The opinion of a vast majority of Americans is of no consequence, and anyone giving it the slightest contemplation is like totally a homophobic hater or something.
I don't think it's possible to drink enough for these people to make sense.
You didn't know? Treason is trendy these days, sell outs everywhere to special interests and agendas.....Sickingly pathetic but fully expected froom and ignorant cowardly weak willed and physically weak citizenry that is so dependent on all the technology that the industrial age has brought us. the fastest way to slavery is to make life too comfortable and easy, but you can't tell Americans that they will call you nuts and conspiracy theorist..Too bad my "theory" is absolutely correct. Sign me, Neal Jensen
@Wraith: "The opinion of a majority (a narrow one) of the SCOTUS should absolutely be respected and obeyed, and any suggestion otherwise is treasonous, inhuman and icky."
Gee, I wonder if the original author views people who oppose race-based slavery (Dred Scott ett al.) and segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, et al.) as traitors? After all, those were both settled law according to the Supremes.
We're being ruled by absolute crazy...
Post a Comment