Posted on 07/10/2018 5:32:34 PM PDT by BEJ
“WHEN IS TREASON... TREASON?”
There is no such thing with Mueller and Rosenfeinstein at the helm.
Let’s not forget John F’in Kerry (who took an oath) conspiring with the North Vietnamese.
Look up the federal statute for ‘treason’. There you will find CLEARLY that the statute for the crime of treason is set apart from all others of a similar category by “persons owing allegiance”.
Owing allegiance is only on record by an oath of allegiance.
Naturalized US Citizens are required to take an Oath of Allegiance.
All other US Citizens are not required to take an oath unless they enter military or certain government service paths.
A US Citizen, born as a US Citizen, in other words not naturalized, is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to take an oath of allegiance, not required to ‘owe’ allegiance UNLESS such person enters government service such as the military, the executive agencies, Congress, the courts. Such a person so entering is required to ‘owe allegiance’ and this can only be marked for the record by taking an oath of allegiance.
In this context, an ‘oath’ is a legal event.
US Citizens born as citizens, if they act out in a ‘treasonous’ manner, may be charged with ‘sedition’, ‘subversion’, ‘conspiracy’ but NOT treason unless they are on record as ‘owing allegiance’. Among these crimes, treason is the highest and can be punished by death.
We can say that we observe a person acting in a ‘treasonous manner’. But to charge them with the crime of treason requires more elements. There is a difference between ‘treasonous behavior’ and ‘treasonous crime’.
We might observe a US-born citizen who we think is nuts acting bizarrely, say jumping up and down saying they want to overthrow the Constitution and the United States in favor of World Communism. We can say that such person is acting in a treasonous manner. Unfortunately, there is no law that bars them from acting that way if there is no record of them owing allegiance.
If we assert that such as person ‘owes allegiance’, that person or their lawyer might respond by asking “where and when did I ever owe allegiance”?
If they took an oath of allegiance, we got them.
Layout your references because there is still a standing statute for naturalized citizens to undergo an oath of allegiance ceremony.
Lay out your linked references and I will bet you that your info was taken out of context.
For example, a ceremonial oath of allegiance, how can that not be ‘enforceable’? Such ceremonies are still required. And when they are administered, those oath ceremonies clearly put the naturalized citizen at risk of treasonous crime if they should ever commit acts of treason.
Otherwise, we could have naturalized US citizens who act to overthrow the United States immune to charges of treason; ridiculous.
How would an oath of allegiance taken by a naturalized citizen be unenforceable yet the same oath taken by an FBI agent be enforceable?
Layout your references and don’t waste time. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.
People haven’t yet recovered from the Left’s nervous breakdown during the Rosenberg trial and execution. I realized that after Fonda’s little excursion into treason.
Jane Fonda can still be tried, convicted and hanged, can she not? I don’t believe there’s a statute of limitations on treason.
Then Afoyim v Rusk 387 US 253 1967
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States
... The Court's majority held that the jury in Kawakita's trial had been justified in concluding that he had not lost or given up his U.S. citizenship while he was in Japan during the war.[9]:720–732 The Court added that an American citizen owed allegiance to the United States, and could be found guilty of treason, no matter where he lived—even for actions committed in another country that also claimed him as a citizen.[3][9]:732–736 Further, given the flagrant nature of Kawakita's actions, the majority found that the trial judge had not acted arbitrarily in imposing a death sentence.[9]:744–745
................ http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/190F2d506.html
TOMOYA KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES
No. 12061
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT 190 F.2d 506; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453
June 22, 1951
PRIOR HISTORY: See 96 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1950)
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed, 343 U.S. 717 (1952); the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Presidential proclamation on Oct. 29, 1953; Kawakita was pardoned on Oct. 24, 1963 under condition of perpetual exile, having lost his American nationality by reason of conviction for treason.
II. Did Kawakita Owe Allegiance to The United States?
The definition of treason is a part of the supreme law of the land. United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 3, provides: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. * * * ”
Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1, Act of March 4, 1909, c. 321, Sec. 1, 35 Stat. 1088, as it stood at the time of the alleged overt acts, provided: n6 “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”
By definition, the crime of treason can only be committed by one owing allegiance to the United States. It is appellant’s contention that at the time the acts charged in the [**9] indictment were committed, he did not owe allegiance to the United States because, as a dual American and Japanese citizen, he owed allegiance to Japan alone while in that country. According to appellant’s reasoning, in his brief, under his dual citizenship he could adhere to the enemy and give it aid and comfort while in the enemy country with impunity.As we shall presently show, dual citizenship does nothing to relieve an American citizen of his citizenship obligations. An American citizen retains that status until expatriated under American law and he is subject to trial and punishment for treason. It is also contended that, having been a Japanese national from birth, Kawakita’s act of registration in the family census register, and his other activities during the war, amounted to expatriation from United States citizenship.
Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 1939, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320. In order to be relieved of the duties of allegiance, consent of the sovereign is required. Mackenzie v. Hare, 1915, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297. [**10] Congress has provided that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all [*512] people, n7 and has further made a legislative declaration as to what acts shall amount to an exercise of such right. n8 The enumerated methods set out in the chapter are expressly [*513] made the sole means of expatriation. n9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States
... The Court's majority held that the jury in Kawakita's trial had been justified in concluding that he had not lost or given up his U.S. citizenship while he was in Japan during the war.[9]:720–732 The Court added that an American citizen owed allegiance to the United States, and could be found guilty of treason, no matter where he lived—even for actions committed in another country that also claimed him as a citizen.[3][9]:732–736 Further, given the flagrant nature of Kawakita's actions, the majority found that the trial judge had not acted arbitrarily in imposing a death sentence.[9]:744–745
................ http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/190F2d506.html
TOMOYA KAWAKITA v. UNITED STATES
No. 12061
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT 190 F.2d 506; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2453
June 22, 1951
PRIOR HISTORY: See 96 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1950)
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Affirmed, 343 U.S. 717 (1952); the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by Presidential proclamation on Oct. 29, 1953; Kawakita was pardoned on Oct. 24, 1963 under condition of perpetual exile, having lost his American nationality by reason of conviction for treason.
II. Did Kawakita Owe Allegiance to The United States?
The definition of treason is a part of the supreme law of the land. United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 3, provides: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. * * * ”
Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1, Act of March 4, 1909, c. 321, Sec. 1, 35 Stat. 1088, as it stood at the time of the alleged overt acts, provided: n6 “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”
By definition, the crime of treason can only be committed by one owing allegiance to the United States. It is appellant’s contention that at the time the acts charged in the [**9] indictment were committed, he did not owe allegiance to the United States because, as a dual American and Japanese citizen, he owed allegiance to Japan alone while in that country. According to appellant’s reasoning, in his brief, under his dual citizenship he could adhere to the enemy and give it aid and comfort while in the enemy country with impunity.As we shall presently show, dual citizenship does nothing to relieve an American citizen of his citizenship obligations. An American citizen retains that status until expatriated under American law and he is subject to trial and punishment for treason. It is also contended that, having been a Japanese national from birth, Kawakita’s act of registration in the family census register, and his other activities during the war, amounted to expatriation from United States citizenship.
Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 1939, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320. In order to be relieved of the duties of allegiance, consent of the sovereign is required. Mackenzie v. Hare, 1915, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297. [**10] Congress has provided that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all [*512] people, n7 and has further made a legislative declaration as to what acts shall amount to an exercise of such right. n8 The enumerated methods set out in the chapter are expressly [*513] made the sole means of expatriation. n9
Possibly.
Don’t hold your breath.
Forgot to ping my teacher.
Sedition has a statutory definition and it’s a type of treason as well.
"At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/717/
Had Kawakita completed a renunciation of citizenship to the United States before committing treason, a charge of treason against him would not stand. Other charges of criminal nature might have applied to him but treasonous crime is reserved for citizens owing allegiance as evidenced by oath.
Question: why do people make half-baked assertions and not do their due diligence, rather they force me to do the work for them? This is an abuse of my time.
I have exchanged many fruitful discussions with Freepers who take the time to do the work themselves before spouting off some reference which is out of context or misapplied. I can forgive if someone errs and apologizes but I am not expecting an apology here because I don't believe there is a requisite class of character to do that. Prove me wrong on that.
Sedition, it’s not ‘treason’, it is related but different. Sedition is in a category of crimes against the United States but it is NOT treason.
Freepers often complain about how jurists fail to READ THE LAW and end up legislating from the bench. That abhorrent pattern is evident right here.
Her behavior was of a treasonous nature but did not rise to that of a treasonous crime. Emotionally, patriots would like to see her hung. Legally, she skates from charges of treason. There is some room for debate in whether she caused harm to Americans but the differentiating factor of treason is owing allegiance as evidenced by oath. That level of charge of treason won’t stick to her but conspiracy and sedition might.
We can justifiably call her a traitor but charging her with treasonous crime is problematic (although doing so would satisfy our emotions). In another sense, we can call Biden a sick pervert for his behavior around children, but to charge him with molestation raises the bar considerably. It likely won’t stick. There’s a difference in what we feel, what we sense, and what law stipulates. The reason it is thus is that we can be whipped up into a lynch mob whereas the law forces us to settle down.
POWs have claimed and testified that her antics in Vietnam caused their punishers to be emboldened and to inflict even more punishment upon them. So there is an argument for her causing harm indirectly to Americans. But she owed no allegiance, as weird as that sounds, she had a right to oppose the war. But bringing about harm, even indirectly to Americans is grounds for charges of sedition, subversion, conspiracy.
Treason is a crime that holds against those bound to the United States as naturalized citizens, officeholders, military, most government employees. It’s a higher crime and for good reason. Americans are free but those that are responsible to the government or granted special governmental status owe allegiance and are subject to charges of treason, a very high crime, should they commit treasonous acts.
They would think nothing of killing us. That was the 16 year plan.
Those who worked with one or more foreign governments to overthrow ours. So, everyone who participated in the whole Steele dossier fiasco.
> “Perez v Brownell 356 US 44 1958”
NOTHING TO DO WITH TREASON.
> “Then Afoyim v Rusk 387 US 253 1967”
NOTHING TO DO WITH TREASON.
> “Forgot to ping my teacher.”
You should sue your teacher for misinformation as demonstrated in #39.
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.