Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
I pointed out that Welfarism was not Socialism which should not have been necessary for a critical thinker. They are different concepts.
Blurring definitions so that X is defined as Y when in reality it is not won’t fly with me.
Even if those were the only ends of government (which none of the founders claimed to be the case) the means to get there are not specified. That is where it gets tricky.
Not according to the Constitution, no.
Our enemies are those we declare war on. I can’t see treason without having a declared “enemy” to aid and abet.
Criminal acts are not “treason” merely criminal acts. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution as leaving war on the country or aiding one who is at war with us.
By that logic the Japanese were not our enemies on 07 Dec 41 (when they killed 2,400 Americans), until war was declared on 08 Dec 41; likewise, if there were intelligence information that could have prevented the devastation of Pearl Harbor withholding it would not be aiding the enemy of the several states.
Criminal acts are not “treason” merely criminal acts.
Unless those 'criminal acts' are themselves aiding the enemy; furthermore, acts which would otherwise be perfectly legal may be classed as Treason.
Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution as leaving war on the country or aiding one who is at war with us.
Incorrect. It is defined as follows:
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.
You are asserting that 'enemies' means someone we have declared war on (ignoring that others may declare war on us) and then using that to 'prove' that the Constitution says something that it does not.
Well, there's two things wrong there:
First, I never claimed to be a Libertarian on this thread.
Second, nothing in the Libertarian Party's Planks indicates a no-restriction policy for [international-]labor-movement considering the text. In fact, the portion on "Free Trade and Migration" says Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries., the phrase 'unreasonably constrained' means that there are likely reasonable constraints and, given the text of sec 3.2 "Internal Security" seem impossible to assert that any restriction is unreasonable.
You weren’t praising the Libertarian candidate?
Correct de jure Japan was not an enemy until war was declared. But that would not have stopped the prosecution of enemy agents aiding them prior to war being declared.
Withholding information would have to be carefully established along with motive, it would seem.
Obviously I did not pretend to quote the Treason Clause.
Defining “enemy” is the point. It isn’t a coyote smuggling wetbacks in, an international drug ring of private individuals, or people sneaking across the border to get a yob, it is a nation except for Bin Laden. So a state of war is the defining characteristic in Treason.
Treason is designing the overthrow of the government not making money or stealing goods.
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. According to you a nice blitz which knocked out DC (and hence congress's ability to assemble, and therefore declare war) would not make the aggressor an enemy.
Withholding information would have to be carefully established along with motive, it would seem.
Obviously I did not pretend to quote the Treason Clause.
Obviously you don't pretend to understand that someone can be your enemy without you deciding it.
Defining “enemy” is the point.
Correct.
It isn’t a coyote smuggling wetbacks in, an international drug ring of private individuals, or people sneaking across the border to get a yob, it is a nation except for Bin Laden.
Ah, so individuals can't be enemies of the US (the Congress cannot declare war against an individual) unless that individual is Osama? You are not consistent at all.
So a state of war is the defining characteristic in Treason. Treason is designing the overthrow of the government not making money or stealing goods.
You must have failed reading comprehension, I quoted the definition, treason does not entail the overthrow of the government: it is warring on the states or rendering aid and comfort to their enemies.
I said he's more of a constitutionalist than Romney... that's a rather low bar to meet.
But in any case, you asserted things which were plainly false: re the Libertarian stance on border restriction.
Who is going to charge them with the government gone?
Another false assumption. If you don’t have some way of defining “enemy” you are SooL. You can’t charge someone with treason without specifying the act of treason.
I said nothing about what Congress can or can’t do only about what it HAS done. It declared war on Osama functionally.
Treason involves warring against the UNITED STATES. It has two components: an enemy and an act aiding that enemy or actually attacking the government. Attacking a government is an intention to subvert or over throw it. There is no official enemy without a declaration of war.
Even that vague assertion is a step towards realty, I congratulate them.
What assertion? You were the one asserting that they [Libertarians] "don’t want any restriction on labor movement across borders."
The irradiation of the plague that is DC needn't mean that the government is utterly gone: see the War of 1812.
Another false assumption. If you don’t have some way of defining “enemy” you are SooL. You can’t charge someone with treason without specifying the act of treason.
Gee, and when I did specify the acts of treason, in the case of Fast & Furious, you dismissed it because they weren't acts of treason, though they certainly were [unauthorized] acts of war.
I said nothing about what Congress can or can’t do only about what it HAS done. It declared war on Osama functionally.
Then you are a Statist: there is nothing that the government cannot do, because it has the power and "might makes right."
Even the ancient Chinese had more sense than you - and they had the almost circular reasoning concerning the Mandate of Heaven.
Treason involves warring against the UNITED STATES.
OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT!
It has two components: an enemy and an act aiding that enemy or actually attacking the government.
It appears that you read the first part of a sentence, but not the last part.
Attacking a government is an intention to subvert or over throw it. There is no official enemy without a declaration of war.
Again, you are a fool to posit such a statement.
Just because you do not consider someone your enemy does not mean that they do not consider you their enemy.
And you are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.