“Death to America”
I’m open to hearing the moral case for allowing people residing in America to chant this and mean it. It’s not just about policing the specific words but rather the spirit and the desire to spread this spirit to others.
but it' so much more complicated than that.
The courts might for example deem that something like the iraq war qualifies as a war for the purposes of the legislation. Or viet nam. Or far more minor conflicts. That's even assuming a fairly reasonable court which may be far from the case.
meanwhile you're locked up being coerced into a plea.
No ty do your own education. Gets tiring having to prove you guys wrong five times a day and then argue about it. Open Wikipedia and look up US treason laws
Here is the entire treason clause -
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.
I can't seem to find the part that defines enemies as only those the US has declared war on. Can you?
I’m not doing your research for you like I said.
Chezlaw, the US can’t declare those things wars cause then all the hostages we have would be granted POW rights etc
The courts can use espionage laws to sentence people instead of treason.
I’m not doing your research for you like I said.
Chezlaw, the US can’t declare those things wars cause then all the hostages we have would be granted POW rights etc
The courts can use espionage laws to sentence people instead of treason.
I'm aware of that. The courts may agree and accept that it is a war for the purposes of legislation.
I dont know whether the espionage law would cover it all but I dont doubt there are many very dangerous laws that overlap in scope.
What's the point in even posting in a forum if rather than having a discussion, you just resort to this?
Here's a couple of answers to the same question, about the same topic. One is useful, one is not.
You do realize there’s an easy way to correct this.
And we can even bet on it
Wanna do that?
Hopefully you can figure out that yours is not the useful one.
because when I post stuff people disagree with they tell me I am wrong.
These things are faster solved by googling and have greater accuracy as well. I am literally doing people a disservice by giving them answers and then acting as if I have the burden of proof.
Its tiresome proving the same people wrong all the time. If you think I am wrong then look it up yourself.
thats why imo
also when I think people are wrong I look up the info, I dont sit and attack their character with meaningless insults
Right, so no point then, once again showing that at least you demonstrated wisdom when choosing your screen name.
Did you snag pointlesswords.com yet? No rules!!1!!1!
What else would it mean? You really need to show your work here. Everything I'm reading on this suggests that the framers wanted a very narrow definition treason.
Well, since the first people executed for treason were part of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 - not a declared war - it seems that the framers didn't mean to limit the clause to declared wars.
In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court ruling on treason - the Aaron Burr Conspiracy - charges were dismissed because not because there was no declared war, but because the conspirators didn't actually "levy war", only thought about it. One would think that if a US declaration of war was necessary it would have been not only mentioned, it would have been the entire ruling.
Well, since the first people executed for treason were part of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 - not a declared war - it seems that the framers didn't mean to limit the clause to declared wars.
In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court ruling on treason - the Aaron Burr Conspiracy - charges were dismissed because not because there was no declared war, but because the conspirators didn't actually "levy war", only thought about it. One would think that if a US declaration of war was necessary it would
Or you know, they adjusted it over time and what the framers wanted isn’t relevant
Who adjusted it? The answer would need to be the Supreme Court since it's in the Constitution. Do you have any decisions you can cite? I'm not aware of any and I would love to be educated.
Don’t know. Why’re you asking people instead of looking it up?
I clearly said I’m not looking things up for you and if you’d like , we can bet on outcomes
I don’t know what else to tell you
Don’t know. Why’re you asking people instead of looking it up?
I clearly said I’m not looking things up for you and if you’d like , we can bet on outcomes
I don’t know what else to tell you
You can tell me why you think things have changed. I have looked it up. I find nothing. Maybe you have access to some super secret internet site that will be illuminating.
You can tell me why you think things have changed. I have looked it up. I find nothing. Maybe you have access to some super secret internet site that will be illuminating.
should be an easy bet for you then. Again, Im not looking things up for you. We can bet on it if youd like
It's in Article III of the Constitution. Are you suggesting that amendments are somehow different than the actual body of the document?
I don't know. I assume that two different things with two different words and two different meanings are different but I haven't done the research to check.
So, some people wrote some stuff on a piece of paper but now it shouldn't mean anything because times change, but some people wrote some stuff on another piece of paper but it should mean something because it's on a different piece of paper.
should be an easy bet for you then. Again, Im not looking things up for you. We can bet on it if youd like.
I don't make internet bets. But if I were to, as part of the terms we'd need to agree on the authority that would decide who is right. Just hypothetically, what authority would you propose?
Obv.
So, some people wrote some stuff on a piece of paper but now it shouldn't mean anything because times change, but some people wrote some stuff on another piece of paper but it should mean something because it's on a different piece of paper.
who is alleging that? not me
2a is absolutely clear. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Congress shall pass no law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms
that sounds very specific, whereas "aiding the countries enemy" does not
I don't make internet bets. But if I were to, as part of the terms we'd need to agree on the authority that would decide who is right. Just hypothetically, what authority would you propose?
Obv.
1 or 3 different mods, same people that escrow. you dont make internet bets, on an internet betting forum? grow some balls lmao
By authority, I meant what type of evidence would you prevent - Supreme Court cases or opinions in places like Epoch Times, that type of thing. If it's the former, I might consider it. The latter, lol you.
