Minnesota jumps on anti gun wagon

[*zap*]

I think china just wants to do business. They want the rail/roads to the eu built so they can trade overland.

 

[Gutshot007]

Big guy = sleepy joe

 

[*zap*]

The average American does not need to be a constitutional scholar to realize we are taking in the rear and want it to stop NOW. Sic semper tyrannis.

Jmo, ymmv.

 

[Marbles]

the open border, $ and benefits given to illegals is very much giving aid and comfort to the enemy..all it takes is for one enemy of the usa to be allowed in and then harbored, sheltered, transported or given any food or money. and that fits the constitutional definition. ymmv.

Also: The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

^ the above could easily be referred to using the word treason as understood in common usage.

It requires "an overt Act," the definition is very narrow because the Founders feared its abuse and wanted to limit government power to control the population. SCOTUS has upheld and narrowed this further, starting during Jefferson's presidency.

Comparing a crime punishable by death to a crime punishable by "confinement or fine" is stretching, like AOC, because one has no foundation to stand on.

 

[roadrunner]

Not according to The Constitution. One cannot defend the law while disregarding it. Article 3, Section III, Clause 1 of The Constitution is very explicit on the definition and on the fact that the definition cannot be expanded by using the word "only."

Makes me wonder how many people have actually read the document and how many find it a convenience to be disregarded when it does not suit them.

Seesaw...

Have read it. A few times in fact. Many politicians haven't. Many politicians full well know what's in it and rely on the citizenry to not know.

If people only knew the power they weild by what's in that document. Exectives, Legislators, and Judges would beg their pardon if they knew.

The citizenry also holds the true power of the purse, not the House...

 

[Marbles]

Seesaw...

Have read it. A few times in fact. Many politicians haven't. Many politicians full well know what's in it and rely on the citizenry to not know.

If people only knew the power they weild by what's in that document. Exectives, Legislators, and Judges would beg their pardon if they knew.

The citizenry also holds the true power of the purse, not the House...

I agree again. Truly, and not being a smart ass.

 

[*zap*]

It requires "an overt Act," the definition is very narrow because the Founders feared its abuse and wanted to limit government power to control the population. SCOTUS has upheld and narrowed this further, starting during Jefferson's presidency.

Comparing a crime punishable by death to a crime punishable by "confinement or fine" is stretching, like AOC, because one has no foundation to stand on.

Again, just an opinion. How are you qualified to represent what the founders feared? Maybe they feared people like you?
I did not compare any crimes. I said the word treason in common usage by an average citizen could easily be used to describe people who do not uphold their oath of office. Which is a crime.
Look up treason in the dictionary and see if the definition points you to the constitution.

Maybe not securing our borders constitutes an overt act. It is deliberate.

 

[Marbles]

Again, just an opinion. How are you qualified to represent what the founders feared?

I'm not, but any true patriot will have read what they wrote about it, and write they did.

Maybe they feared people like you?

Perhaps, but they explicitly feared "new-fangled and artificial treasons" which "have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other."

Look up treason in the dictionary and see if the definition points you to the constitution.

Bate and switch. You initially argued government officials were committing treason, which a crime is based on the law, not common usage and therefore the legal definition in the jurisdiction in question applies.

However, to humor you a well regarded dictionary defines it as "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." So, even the dictionary does not support your usage.

Maybe not securing our borders constitutes an overt act. It is deliberate.

A "new-fangled and artificial treason" if ever there was one.

 

[*zap*]

Now you decide what a patriot is, yup...they were worried about folks like you. I never referred to the constitution in my original post, you inferred what you wanted to. Many people would agree govt officials are committing treason. Which is regarded by many people as the act of betraying something. You have put words in my mouth before and now again. Have fun with it. Carry on.

 

[Marbles]

Now you decide what a patriot is, yup...they were worried about folks like you

Says the person who believes he gets to define what treason is and ignore the constitution.

 

[*zap*]

The word treason has a few different meanings. Simple betrayal is one. What you inffer that I mean is not an absolute on what I mean. I never mentioned the constitution when I used the word treason.
I get to decide what I say and what that means to me, not you or the constitution.

 

[Beendare]

How anyone voting Democrat can call themself a Hunter, sportsman or a supporter of the Constitution....I don't know.

 

[*zap*]

Marbles, you may want to step back and realize this forum is average American people talking to one another and not a scotus brief. Or maybe not...

 

[*zap*]

Says the person who believes he gets to define what treason is and ignore the constitution.

Was it possible to be a patriot or commit treason before the constitution was created? I believe the word was in use before the 1787.

 

[Marbles]

Marbles, you may want to step back and realize this forum is average American people talking to one another and not a scotus brief. Or maybe not...

Words have meaning, this form is composed of smart people and when smart people choose to be ignorant it is a tragedy.

My writing and knowledge is not nearly adequate for a SCOTUS brief.

The word treason has a few different meanings. Simple betrayal is one. What you inffer that I mean is not an absolute on what I mean. I never mentioned the constitution when I used the word treason.
I get to decide what I say and what that means to me, not you or the constitution.

I don't believe people get to be what they identify as, but that is not a popular position in our society. Language only has meaning between people, your argument comes down to the world must bow to you and you words are for your own pleasure, not to communicate.

Was it possible to be a patriot or commit treason before the constitution was created? I believe the word was in use before the 1787.

Was anyone in this conversation alive prior to September 17th, 1787?

A better quest would be, can someone who cannot read be a patriot? As the answer to that is a resounding yes, it destroys the argument as I worded it. However, you must accept my defense, or repudiate your own in not doing so, as that defense is "What you inffer that I mean is not an absolute on what I mean."

In the end, however, you will take this field, congratulations.