Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF  ), I do not agree.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." More has to happen than the information getting to enemies of the United States. A traitor must actually "adhere" -- affirmatively join with and give allegience or support to -- our enemies.
Sometimes, when the law will support the splitting of the hairs. A court buying the splitting of hairs is a different matter, particularly if we're talking about SCOUTS.
I would have thought that someone who has expressed sympathy for the Tea Party movement would be more concerned with strict adherence to the Constitution than with splitting hairs.
I'd say that if he's not brought up on treason charges, it has nothing to do with the current administration and everything to do with the constitutional definition of treason and the Rule of Law. |
MC, please read my previous post. I apologize if you thought I was belittling your abilities. I was not.
I see an "or" in the Constitution which kind of changes my perception of what it means. I.E. - or ... giving them aid and comfort. This is where the lawyers could/would split hairs.
Where I might see a case for treason others obviously will not. I believe the charge of treason in a military court could stand as the methodology for trying a person is somewhat different from what we laymen see in our everyday judicial system. Not an expert on military trials but just an opinion.
As we have discussed before, I am a States Rights advocate though I do believe in the Tea Party movement and much of what it stands for/against.
Our DOJ is a joke. For years now we have enforced laws that we conveniently chose and ignored those that are not what we politically wish them to be. This goes for the Bush/Clinton/Bush and Obama administrations. But that is another thread.