Posted on 06/12/2019 1:26:56 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell
JAMES MADISON in the 43d number of the Federalist says:
"As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime."
The Constitution confines the crime of treason to two species; First, the levying of war against the United States; and Secondly, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. In so doing the very words of the Statute of Treason of EDWARD the THIRD were adopted; and thus the framers of the Constitution recognized the well settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law which has prevailed for centuries in England.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We throw that treason word around like a father-son game of catch here at Free Republic. It has a very high bar.
Good to know...
Now cry “Havoc” and let slip the Digs of War !
or not !
Same as with ‘monopoly.’ The definition goes out the
window, if it made into the parlor in the first place
“We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.”
No treasonous words or actions in that.
Well it’s part of negotiation you claim they commit treason but when it comes down to it they will find it only to be a ‘lack of candor’ or it wasn’t the ‘intent’ so its ok.
We most around here say treason, they are really referring to sedition.
Not treasonous, ok. Firing on fort Sumter is an act of war against the United States.
We throw that treason word around like a father-son game of catch here at Free Republic. It has a very high bar.
We’ll see how people feel once the ebola starts spreading and China invades California.
We throw that treason word around like a father-son game of catch here at Free Republic. It has a very high bar.
A few years ago, a nutter rushed out of the crowd and fired (I think a blank) pistol while Queen Elizabeth was riding by. Her horse reared, she got it under control and continued on. The shooter was immediately apprehended but I remember at the time that technically, he could be charged with treason.
Trying to undermine the Trump Presidency, while wrong and hopefully will be punished, is not treason as defined by the Constitution. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution BTW.
i.e. What Democrats do EVERY DAY.
re: Aiding and abetting the illegal alien invasion of America.
Still the property of the United States Government. Anderson didn’t take it at the point of a gun., it was occupied at the time by workers under contract to the United States Army. It also mounted about 60 guns. Just a little more than a pile of brick in the Harbor of Charleston. Firing on it was an act of war.
How is allowing illegals to invade not an act of war? How is trying to overthrow the government not waging war?
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” John Harington
I’m amused by the casual disregard for the sovereignty of The United States that we see from some of these people. Makes one wonder who they pledge their allegiance to...
In December of 1860, there were three commissioned, staffed, and occupied Federal posts in Charleston S. C. . Sumter was under construction and not a commissioned or posted Federal emplacement. At the time that Anderson seized it, it was nothing more than a reinforced field position.
The land had been ceded to the Federal government with stipulations regarding its improvement and occupation, which the Federal government had let expire over the 33 year history of its construction.
You may argue that Anderson's position was attacked, but his location was nothing more than a vacant building.
A “vacant” building occupied by about 100 or so United States soldiers, and roughly 60 big guns. United States property none the less.
Troop presence does not define official property.
Ft. Sumter did not become a federal installation until after the war.
In another thread you were presented with recorded evidence that Lincoln had ordered a secret invasion of Charleston Harbor as well at Pensacola.
It was a false flag maneuver just like President Polk’s attempt at the Mexican border 25 years earlier.
Davis was stupid enough to fall into the trap. That was who the Southerners elected to be their President.
Changing the subject and premise to an insult does not advance the dialectic.
You have done this before.
End.
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.