I nearly did a spit take: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-baldasaro-donald-trump-hillary-clinton_us_578fa150e4b07c722ebd2fd1
Think someone is guilty of treason? Here's the test:
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.
Kinda open english: The only things that are treason are making war against us, and helping our enemies. You need two witnesses for an act of treason, though you don't (say the Supremes) for intent to commit treason.
Think you know what should be done to traitors? Well:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
kinda English: Congress gets to figure that out, and there are limits on what they can do.
That's it.
There's a bunch of common law surrounding it which I'll never understand, but the US Constitution is pretty clear. To accuse someone of treason is to accuse them of making open war against the United States, or to intentionally helping our enemies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-baldasaro-donald-trump-hillary-clinton_us_578fa150e4b07c722ebd2fd1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What are enemies of the states? (If you happen to know.)
ReplyDeleteThey're going for the "aiding enemies" angle but then again, I suspect they think she's aiding the enemy by being a woman.
ReplyDeleteFrom, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason, emphasis added "The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteThe last time we declared war was WW2.
.. Though that doesn't quite make sense: We didn't declare war during the Civil War (no one to declare against), but every member of the confederacy could have been brought up on charges. I suppose that's the "levying war" clause.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we even pretending that they're starting from the evidence, and then reasoning forward?
ReplyDeleteTheir reasoning for Hillary having committed treason is that they are the good guys, and she is against them, so she must be a traitor. After all, good guys get to shoot the bad guys. That's 'Murrica.
Because, Tony Lower-Basch , we're still pretending we have rule of law.
ReplyDeleteBut ... it's not like "rule of law" is an orbital mind control laser that blankets people's brains and prevents them from ignoring logic and rationality.
ReplyDeleteYou're asking (it seems to me) "How did he start from the observed evidence and rationally proceed to a conclusion that treason had been committed?" and I question several of your premises.
I've had to explain carefully to my young son "This thing you're seeing with the GOP? That's not normal. Don't look at that and form conclusions about how politics normally works, any more than you would look outside during a hurricane and use that to figure out how weather normally works." So maybe I'm getting a little bit twitchy at the intellectual exercise of trying to construct some rational devil's-advocate explanation for what's being said.
Tony Lower-Basch I react pretty strongly to the word treason. My higher school history was offering much shit, but they drilled in how narrowly treason is defined.
ReplyDeleteIncompetence can't be treason. To advise someone if treason is to say they are seeking the destruction on the union.
That's the ignorance that really gets me. We will all have different receive to this shit fest.
Tony Lower-Basch Also, I'm reacting rather than making an argument. My spittake wasn't a rational response. I get so annoyed when people misuse "treason".
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think the point is that they want a capital crime. "Treason" is just a convenient label for the sentence they hope to achieve in a kangaroo court.
ReplyDeleteThe real message (IMO) is: "The Trump campaign will make whatever you voters want into a reality! It doesn't have to be legal, or ethical, you just have to want it enough to go to the polls. Want a wall with Mexico, for free? We'll do that. Want Hillary Clinton shot? We'll do that. Elect Donald, and this wonderful utopia can be yours!"
So I am outraged to a red-hot burning fit, but I'm more oriented on "You sons of bitches just threatened to kill your political rival! This is fucking America and I got all the patriotic ball-sack punches you just signed up for right here!" than I am upon "Wow, that is a profound ignorance of the correct use of the term."
While I grasp that there is room in the world for both responses, there isn't room in me. I apologize for derailing the thread ... the convention is not leaving me at my best.
I think the message is "we'll say anything just please vote for Trump", and I'm not sure there's any intention to take action.
ReplyDeleteI think that to pay attention to this nonsense is to not be at ones best. I wonder when the last time was in US history that this happened.
I don't think people said it about anyone in my memory. I doubt FDR would have said anything like that. Nixon ... didn't threaten, he just acted. Right?