Posted: 4/26/2007 5:16:16 PM EDT
|
Why are we allowing members of Congress to destroy this country? Did not each and every person elected to the United States Congress, take an oath to uphold the Declaration of Independence? To protect it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I believe we must take a stand and charge any and all members of Congress with Treason when they try to circumvent the Constitution. I believe this could be a great legal stance to protect the Second Amendment. What do you think? Jim Smith |
 I think you may have failed your civics class. |
The commie bastards already have commie judges in all the federal courts. It's too late!  While we worried about all the crap like Klinton getting head and whether or not we can say "bitches and ho's".....they stole our Country! |
Eh, his hearts in the right place though. |
|
Hmmm I wonder if leaking classified info on our war plans to the NYT (as the easiest way to get it to the enemy) aids and comforts the enemy? I think telegraphing our every move, mistake, secret plan, secret tactic or countermeasure, probably "doesn't help" and it "aids and comforts" the enemy. But so long as it's hunky dory to make movies fantasizing about killing Bush but illegal to make terrorists feel uncomfortable, NOTHING short of a liberal congressman literally killing someone will matter. They're caught with 90,000 in cash and nothing happens. They're caught stealing national archive secrets and nothing happens. It's not a sane world - it's never been 'sane'. |
 Shh, you're ruining his rallying cry.
|
No, he is not right. He is in fact wrong in every aspect of his argument. Congress swears an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Treason is defined by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and what he is calling treason does not meet the definition. And he joined over 2 years ago, so calling him new is a stretch. Definitely not a post whore, but not a newbie either. 
|
They don't see themselves as circumventing the Constitution. |
"giving them aid and comfort" Hell with that you could convict 99.9% of Democraps without much effort. |
Wow...aren't you just a peach of a guy. HH |
What? The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and nobody swears an oath to uphold it. Not that there is anything to uphold - it is written as an indictment of King George III. The ideals expressed are of course brilliant and are the ideas that our Constitution is based on.
According to the Constitution, 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." |
Perhaps you should look into what that phrase meant to the people who wrote it before making such a flippant remark. 
|
Well, sometimes the truth hurts. BTW, please solve this little conundrum: The OP states that any members of Congress who attempts to circumvent the Constitution should be tried for treason. Trying someone for treason for circumventing the Constitution would require that we circumvent Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.  So explain to me again how the OP "knows what he is saying" and is "right." |
If being a defeatist is not "aid and comfort" then those words have not meaning. |
|
I think "Sedition" might sum things up better than treason. They ARE clearly attempting to subvert the Constitution through unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) means. Don't give a damn how many laws they pass saying it's OK, the vast majority of them wouldn't stand up to a TRUE review using the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, NOT INTERPRETED. |
Once again, you need to look into what the Framers meant by that phrase. Treason was a powerful charge, and one often abused by the British prior to our independence. This is important to know in order to understand the intent of Article III Section 3. The Framers set a very high bar to what constituted treason. Merely making defeatist statements does not rise to the standard. |
It is impossible to apply the entire constitution as written without interpretation. Explain to me what "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive bail" means without engaging in some interpretation. |
Correct. The Brits would charge people with treason left and right, using it as a weapon to rid themselves of dissidants and enemies. This clause was written to prevent such abuse. |
True to a point but it's been stretched and broken beyond any sane limits in the past few decades. Some of the convulouted "logic" that has been applied is simply whacked. Kelo? Raich? McConnell? All pretty much bullshit (IMHO). |
|
You don't think that the demonrats in Congress aren't doing exactly that? You can twist it and spin it anyway you want, but that is exactly what they are doing. I suppose that you think what Jane Fonda did by going to Hanoi wasn't treason either. |
Toughen up, we do this all the time, instead of what we should be doing. |
Doesn't one of the amendments gurantee trial by jury for civil cases over $20? When was the last time a jury was pooled for a $5000 law suit? |
| Unfortunately we seem to live in an age of corruption(been that way for awhile) and self-interest(isn't that always the case) and as much as it seems that political figures aren't upholding the oaths(probably very true) they took, nothing is going to really ever be done. Americans have become too passive about political issues and are too busy with their own problems, its too bad most people can't even tell you their own personal stance on ballot issues without citing the opinionated crap they hear on party-specific news channels. Sorry guys, we're probably long overdo for a revolution(Atleast thats what the Mensan Philosophy teacher I have says, its safe to assume that he's right) |
Um, can you name a Constitutional lawyer who supports your contention? I never read or heard of any while I was studying for my PhD in Constitutional Law and History. Also, please explain how your proposed treason trials gets around Article I, Section 6 which states (emphasis added):
You proposed defense of the Constitution (by trying member of Congress for treason when they pass any law that violates the document) itself violates two express provisions of that document. I guess you will have to convict yourself for treason while you are at it.
|
| Bush could've taken care of the house majority leader if he had the gonads, and arrested/charged her under the Logan Act. He didn't, and I'm starting to wonder if the GOP wants to give control back to the dems to see some of this immigration legislation go through. |
And you forgot a big one. Dianne Feinswine (D-Idiot) war profiteering on the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee while throwing contract after contract to her hubby who owns a large part of defense contractor Perini. It's been kept really quiet (unlike Halliburton).....  Sen. Dianne Feinstein Wednesday, March 28, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ON CAPITOL HILL Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud Report documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved. As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein's resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp. Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing "quality of life" issues for the veterans of the United States military services. "As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design," wrote Peter Byrne in the report. "She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp." He suggested perhaps Feinstein resigned "because she could not take the heat generated by metro's expose of her ethics… Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?" The writer also noted another reason could be that since that subcommittee is responsible for veterans' "quality of life" issues, perhaps she was trying to distance herself from the military's failure to provide decent medical care for wounded servicemembers. "Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases – often without the benefit of competitive bidding – to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch," he wrote. The Metroactive report, based on research partly funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute, noted that as of the end of 2006, federal documents showed three companies in which Blum's financial entities owned a total of $1 billion in stock got $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies (Boston Scientific Corp.), $12 million for medical supplies and equipment (Kinetic Concepts Inc.), and additional funding through lease contracts (CB Richard Ellis). "You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee," Byrne wrote. "Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars." Byrne earlier had documented the connections between the dollars Feinstein voted on and the revenue for Blum's companies. From 1997 through 2005 Blum, with Feinstein's knowledge, was a majority owner in both URS Corp. and Perini Corp., both of which were regularly among the companies awarded major military contracts proposed by the Department of Defense. According to those reports, from 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup work approved by MILCON, while Perini collected $759 million for the same. Feinstein's annual Public Financial Disclosure Reports record sizeable family income from investments in the Framingham, Mass.-based Perini and the San Francisco-located URS. But there was no acknowledgment of any conflict of interest, according to Metroactive, a "Northern California meta-site" that specializes in arts and entertainment information from area publications: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper; Metro Santa Cruz; and the North Bay Bohemian. Byrne also reported Michael R. Klein, an adviser to Feinstein and business partner with Blum, said that starting in 1997 he routinely told Feinstein about federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake, in order for her to avoid those votes and as such, a conflict of interest. However, instead of withholding a vote, she did act on those pieces of legislation, Byrne reported. Ultimately, "the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms," Byrne's report said. "Sen. Feinstein has had a serious conflict of interest, a serious insensitivity to ethical considerations," Wendell Rawls, of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, told Metroactive. "The very least she should have done is to recuse herself from having conversations, debates, voting or any other kind of legislative activity that involved either Perini Corp. or URS Corp. or any other business activity where her husband's financial were involved." One example was that in 2005, MILCON approved a Pentagon plan to fund "overhead coverage force protection" for Iraq to reinforce the roofs of U.S. Army barracks. About three months later, Perini announced an award of a $185 million contract to provide "overhead coverage force protection to the Army in Iraq." Byrne noted when Blum divested ownership of URS and Perini in 2005, the conflict of interest was resolved. "But Feinstein's ethical dilemma arose from the fact that, for five years, the interests of Perini and URS and CB Richard Ellis were inextricably entwined with her leadership of MILCON ... ." The investigation examined thousands of pages of documents, including transcripts of hearings in Congress, filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and reports and government audits as well as corporate press releases. The result? "The paper trails showing Sen. Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable," according to Danielle Brian, of the Project on Government Oversight. "Because of the amount of money involved," said Melanie Sloan, of the Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, "Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than [other] conflicts [involving U.S. Rep. John T. Doolittle, former Speaker Dennis Hastert and others]." In 2005, Roll Call calculated Feinstein's wealth at $40 million, up $10 million from just a year earlier. Reports show her family earned between $500,000 and $5 million from capital gains on URS and Perini stock. From CB Richard Ellis, her husband earned from $1.3 million to $4 million. Public records show Blum's company paid $4 a share for controlling interest in Perini, and later sold about three million shares for $23.75 each. The report also showed URS' military construction work in 2000 was only $24 million, but the next year, when Feinstein took over as MILCON chair, military construction earned URS $185 million. Additionally, its military construction architectural and engineering revenue rose from $108,000 in 2000 to $142 million in 2001, a thousand-fold increase. In late 2005, Blum sold 5.5 million URS shares, worth $220 million, the report said. |
Constitution, Declaration of Independence same thing.
|
|
I think we're missing the point here. When a member of congress violates the oath to uphold the constitution, they become a domestic enemy. Thats one of the reasons the phrase was incorporated into the oath. The founding fathers didnt swear people in for grins and a photo op. How many members of congress would run for reelection if they had to take an oath before a crowd of armed citizens....not many. Everytime an elected official co-sponsors a bill with another official who has violated the oath, they are providing direct aid. Every time a member of congress who violates the constitution is acknowledged as an authority by the people, WE commit treason by aiding that official with a vote, campaign funds, or following orders. |
The Declaration of Independence gives a lot of context to the Constitution. IMO it's equally important. For example, how the hell did our police and military manage to degenerate back to what we initially denounced in the declaration:
The declaration also does a much more direct and blunt job of explaining the purpose of government, and the right of the people:
|
Folks take an oath to protect The Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, not the Declaration of Independence. |
This is one reason I fully support adding term limits to all members of congress, as well as shorter terms and lower salaries. |
I contend that Harry Reid gave aid to the enemy by declaring the war to be lost. He did so by encouraging the enemy and discouraging our Armed Forces with his words. |
Leaky Leahy leaked details of a classified operation in Egypt, resulting in the death of one of our agents. He most definitly gave aid to our enemies by leaking the details of a classified operation to the press, and all he got was a slap on the hand. |
| Well in order for this to happen you have to get the DAs office to file charges... and in order to do that, there has to be a media shitstorm making it a career-ending move to ignore charging them. As long as we have a predominantly liberal media, the liberal agenda will be pushed. |
| Regardless of all the wrangling over the constitution etc. and who should be tried and not there is one simple fact. Treason is an extremely hard charge to convict someone of. People who routinely sold secrets to the Soviets weren't convicted of it so it would be tough to convict members of the congress.Google convictions for treason and I think you will be surprised how few have ever been convicted of it. As an aside I think Hanoi Jane commited treasonous acts and should have paid for it in the way all true traitors should be treated. |
There are many voters out there who think that congress is finally on the right path. I am not one of them, nor are you likely to be. But the sad fact of the mater is that over the last 25 years, the country has become so polarized that bad things are simply bound to happen. Did not each and every person elected to the United States Congress, take an oath to uphold the Declaration of Independence? To protect it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. You are thining about the Constitution. Nobody has done more HARM ot the Constitution in my lifetime than GWBush wiht the Patriot acts (and follow ons). I believe we must take a stand and charge any and all members of Congress with Treason when they try to circumvent the Constitution. If you want treason articles for the congresspeople, then start at the top with GWBush. I believe this could be a great legal stance to protect the Second Amendment. What do you think? I think you would be opening a can of worms so immense that nobody really knows how much damage would insue. |
That ammendment does not apply to state-level (non-federal) suits, which are the vast majority of cases |
Yea, but that has a section that we use to justify our overthrowing of the current deuche bags in office!!!! |