Posted on 07/18/2025 2:55:06 PM PDT by RandFan
From your lips to God’s ears. It’s what I’ve been praying for, for a long time. There do seem to be a lot of pieces falling into place. Have to wait and see.... and pray a lot.
Do Antifa, BLM, and the ICE protesters attempt by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? Have these characters who have tried by extra-Constitutional means to oust a duly-elected President also conspired with these belligerent groups?
If these were about Trump, the MSM has already devour and probe to the end of earth. But, because this is Obama’s white house... [ ]
That's actually a good question. Certainly what they do is coercive, whether by violence of extortion with the threat of violence. Yet it is not on behalf of a foreign power, and less directed at the States than the Feds. I don't think of Antifa as "for" anything beyond chest pounding.
I did resonate with Mr. Noble's posts.
Accordingly, the reason I'm adverse to incorporating acts undermining or intended to depose an elected official is because the Constitution is a limiting document; i.e., if it isn't there it isn't Constitutional. Hence, what Tulsi Gabbard is calling treason isn't, because the Constitution sets its definition narrowly. Zero, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey certainly deserve 20 years in prison at least (public hanging would be my preference), but we can't call it "treason" because that deprecates respect for the limiting functions prescribed in the Constitution.
Where this gets legally sticky is the idea that whatever the Constitution doesn't specify is therefore not a legitimate power of the government, and when it comes to punishing officers of the government the document is horribly weak. Patrick Henry had a cow about it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and he was certainly right. Hence, I think we need an amendment here; else the Supreme Law isn't law from a constructionist perspective. Needless to say, we don't have many within the clown show of Congress capable of even conceptualizing such measures much less to make them air tight (Zero being an exemplar of the ultimate in weasels) but it is where we are, and demonstrates WHY we have such a hard time holding officers of the government responsible for what they do.
Yet if we did institute such measures, whom of those with any talent would want to assume such an office? Answer: Either from among the vast population of the totally craven or those likely few who would risk their lives in public service.
It's an interesting problem.
Great post.
Wish we had a special forum on FR where we could have productive discussions about these critical constitutional issues with a better signal/noise ratio.
You might enjoy the site to which the link was targeted.
I wrote all of that material.
Antifa, BLM, ICE protesters, etc have engaged in seditious conspiracy, according to the statute you cited:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
I say that because it doesn’t require any involvement with a foreign country and since it involves hindering the execution of federal that applies to all of the States. In the same way, what Brennan, Clapper, etc have done all fit the prohibition on seditious conspiracy. And so do all of the “sanctuary cities”.
We never declare War any more so treason is impossible for anybody, if the upper-case War means declared war against a country. We have declared war on terrorism through the Authorization to Use Force, but I suppose that probably doesn’t mean War because it is not specifically a declaration of War on a country.
So technically, a person could give support to Iran who has a fatwa against our President and constantly says it wants to destroy the Great Satan (US) - and in fact could use any force it wanted against us but it would still not be treason because the US Congress will never declare War on any given country. So for all practical purposes there is no such thing as technical treason. Even giving China, Iran, etc our military secrets and technology can’t be called treason. And because it doesn’t involve the direct use of force it can’t even be called seditious conspiracy. There is thus no Constitutional prohibition against outright giving away all our secrets, technology, or even our military equipment to hostile countries. Those things could only be prosecuted using lesser statutes.
The Constitutional solution for officers who break their oaths of office (is it the same language as reasons to impeach a President - “high crimes and misdemeanors” and for seditious conspiracy?) is impeachment and removal but because of the Cloward-Piven Plan’s use of motor voter and illegal immigration to change the balance of the House - by counting illegals as those to be represented - until that situation is changed (at least 5 years from now) there are enough seditious conspiracists in the legislative branch to make conviction of those people impossible. The black-robed tyrants are trying to make it impossible to even FIRE them, much less convict them in the Senate for seditious conspiracy.
And IMHO all of these people could accurately be described as “treasonous” even though not guilty of actual treason since seditious conspiracy is included among what is called the treason laws, as TigersEye says. If the Constitution not saying exactly who has the job of prosecuting seditious conspiracy means the feds can’t do it, then by the Constitution it would fall to the States to do it, right? Can States have the responsibility and right to enforce the US Constitution? Then again, SCOTUS is expressly given the task of DECIDING all matters arising out of the Constitution, so maybe the States would have to prosecute seditious conspiracy but it would have to be decided by SCOTUS? Does that fit the original meaning of the US Constitution?
There are a LOT of people who could/should be brought up on seditious conspiracy - probably including most of the former leadership of the CIA since they HAVE been doing black ops (use of force) inside the country. Most of the DNC should be brought up for conspiring with the likes of that guy who was exposed by James O’Keefe for what was called “diabolical” conspiracies including some we know include violence/force (wish I could remember his name). No doubt that Bill Ayers should be in prison for 20 years, and since he was constantly visiting Obama in the White House and because Obama was in the same group at Columbia (IIRC) an investigation into whether Obama was a co-conspirator would be in order.
I will be more exact in my language. Thank you for bringing up the technicalities and finer points.
As I suspect you know, I'm with you on the intent, but I do think Patrick Henry was right: We need a clearer way of punishing officials (including at the State level) who act to undermine the Constitutional will of the people without it becoming political foosball. Congressional impeachment requiring Senate removal doesn't cut it.
So let's game it for a minute. What about setting up a "Constitutional Court" with which to prosecute elected offals having a bench similar to SCOTUS? How would that prosecutor's office be set up? To whom would they be accountable? I like the idea that it would be narrower than SCOTUS such that its panel might be so scrutinized before confirmation.
Then again, did any of Bill Ayers’s bombings try to hinder the execution of a US law? Was he trying to take over the US government by force? The group he was with clearly intended to take over the US govt according to their own words and they used force/violence toward that end, but they knew they couldn’t do it by sheer force; even 9-11 isn’t an attempt to take over the whole US government by sheer force. If it had been all US citizens plotting 9-11 we probably couldn’t even call it seditious conspiracy unless 9-11 could be called “levy(ing) war against the Government of the United States”. But only the plane intended for the Pentagon targeted any entity within the US government. Is attacking one element of the US government the same as trying to destroy the Government of the United States? Or is it OK to try to destroy the US Government by force in increments? Even hot wars would only be trying to take out the whole US Government at once if all of DC and all of the executive agency branches were hit at once. Seems like that would require a series of maybe 3 nuclear hits simultaneously, to fit this definition.
I don’t know. Parsing words is necessary, I suppose, but I have an uneasy feeling that the words of these laws can be reduced to meaning something so specific that they end up meaning nothing.
I don’t think I was trying to be sarcastic in anything I wrote. I’m thinking out loud, trying to sort it out.
I’m wondering if what you are describing is what military tribunals are expected to do at this point, but I don’t know what the criteria are for determining that the US government has been taken over by belligerents.
The whole issue is wearying to me because both the military and judges requiring confirmation are so easily corrupted because of their contact with the so-compromised legislative branch (which I believe is compromised because of the intel community which has no accountability because they can claim “national security” or “confidential records” and the body supposedly holding them accountable is vulnerable to their coercive tactics including bribery if they’ve engaged in questionable activity and threats of harm to their families if they’ve not.)
And the chance of passing any Constitutional Amendment in the political climate we have right now seems close to zero, even if a good hypothetical solution to the problem of good ol’ human nature and corruptability was devised.
I’m usually an optimistic person. Some might say naive or just stupid. But conversations like this leave me hopeless, to be honest.
I’ve been told that the Founders said this form of government could only work with a moral people.
It seems like only the enemies of this nation took that seriously. So they didn’t seek to take over the government using force (as the Constitution protects us from that) but by corruption of the very people of the US. There was a list of communist objectives that was read into the Congressional record at one point in the 60’s I think, and the objectives were almost all geared toward demoralizing the US public and/or making it impossible for moral people to impact the policies of government.
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov talked about the process of overthrowing a country from within as having various steps - the first one being demoralizing the people, then destabilization where a crisis brings things to a head, then the revolution/takeover, and lastly “normalization”, i.e. the society coming to accept their new overlords.
None of that really involves the use of force, except possibly the takeover but that could just as easily be done judicially (for instance). So the Constitution does not protect us from ourselves or from enemies who use influence (finances, supposed science, education, entertainment, etc) to make us non-moral so that the whole system will fall apart - as accurately described by our very founders.
We the People were responsible to guard our own souls, and our doing so was critical for the survival of the country. We failed, miserably. We have let every imaginable (and some not even imaginable) form of corruption, theft, lies, murder, and sellout to Satan to carry the day in the USA. The churches mostly remained silent - cowed into thinking that the Ten Commandments are just religion and thus banned from society and politics.
What it comes down to is this: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chron 7:14
Given all the precedents and lawyerly sophistry that now carry the day, I think the only way out of this mess may be to wipe the slate clean and start over. But even that would make no difference unless we become a people with integrity. A moral people. A people that would never think to say that we have to set murderers free because if we execute real justice they might be deported. Or any other such corruption under the guise of “being nice/Christian”.
I’m amazed that God hasn’t barfed us up yet. We’re in the process of committing national suicide and “justice” is a sick joke.
I’m not smart enough to figure out a solution for the problem that we call “government”. But I know One who is smart enough to say that once you abandon justice and decency, the only hope for you is to repent and call on the One who carries the power of life and death, to rescue you from this body of death.
I’m pretty sure that is the only solution for us.
Yes to the legal architecture, but no to the guns. Enforceable by police power, but hopefully in Congressional hands.
The "wearying" attributes originate in our civic respect for university credentialing. The latter in particular is what was compromised long ago (starting in 1993 to be precise). What came with that was the subjectification of language itself.
And the chance of passing any Constitutional Amendment in the political climate we have right now seems close to zero, even if a good hypothetical solution to the problem of good ol’ human nature and corruptability was devised.
We agree there for now, but I'm not without hope.
I’m usually an optimistic person. Some might say naive or just stupid. But conversations like this leave me hopeless, to be honest.
Hence, if you are interested in discussing this further re the source of my hope, FReepmail me.
Excellent post! I understand exactly where you’re coming from and in essence agree with you.
When it comes to Gabbard’s statements I am not inclined to apply such a rigid standard. She is not indicting anyone or submitting legal filings she is just expressing her opinion to the news services and the public on the evidence she has found and declassified and now referred to Justice.
I look at her comments as a negotiating tactic. She is setting the narrative high. Trump does it all the time and he seems fairly competent at negotiating things. It will now be up to Pam Bondi to find the specific crimes per the specific persons and when she announces indictments she should, and I expect will, be very legally precise as to what statutes are involved and characterize them in the proper legal terms.
She can say, for example, “We charging Barack Hussein 0bama with sedition. It is not treason, as some have said his crimes rise to, but sedition is only a hair’s breadth lesser crime than treason and very much in the same category. It is a heinous act that greatly damages the foundations of our nation. We intend to prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt.”
I knew that; I'm just tired of the hyperbolic nature of it and fear that it can therefore be used to take the force out of the potential charges. I want those people punished.
She is setting the narrative high. Trump does it all the time
To me, that's one of the more irritating things about Trump, because it obscures where he really stands, making it harder to formulate where it goes for purposes of either negotiation or constructive repost. After all, he doesn't know everything as "Warp Speed" amply demonstrated.
What Bondi eventually says will be very interesting.
Fair enough.
It’s one of the things I really like about Trump.
I think his batting average is pretty good.
Well researched, well reasoned and well written!
Thanks! There's a lot of information at that site.
We all have to make judgements in life with imperfect information, especially when voting. That's why we are supposed to find people worthy of such difficult choices with the job of gathering information to execute reasoned judgements. Given that we cannot be there possessing sufficient authority to keep them from wrongdoing, there must be a remedy to limit or undo the damage done, which starts with the motivational architecture within which they operate to constrain the temptations of power.
We obviously have a problem there.
Now its all like selecting prom king\queen!
The Founders warned us!
Which? If you read the account of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Henry's warning was met with Hamilton's bombastic smoke screen, Madison's stammering, and Randolph's incredulity. How much of that was for rhetorical purposes we'll never know.
Madison's reaction was particularly disturbing to me because of his genius, but he was young enough he might have been prone to unwarranted idealism. Hamilton clearly knew what he was doing but we'll never know the degree of his intrigues were justified by his belief in the need for the country to raise money for a navy. Don't know enough about Randolph to come to any conclusions.
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.