Author Topic: When the elected government commits treason (Read 2645 times)

Marlelar · « **on:** July 09, 2014, 10:26:03 AM »

When the elected government turns against the nation, as ours has with its allowance of if not downright encouragement of the invasion of illegals from Central America, is it treason? Can a "government" commit treason against the "Nation"? Or can only an individual commit treason?

I suppose either way it doesn't matter, our government is acting in a treasonous manner by its cooperation with this soft invasion. There is obviously a purpose behind this current move as we all know our government is not soft-hearted, they do nothing without calculation.

Marsha

Dolores · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2014, 05:43:35 PM »

People like to throw accusations of "treason" around, however the crime of treason is very narrowly defined under the constitution.

Quote from: Article III, Section 3

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.

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.

No matter what one thinks of the influx of illegals, I don't think anyone can honestly claim that allowing them in constitutes waging war or giving aid and comfort to an enemy (especially since the United States is not at war with any Latin American nation).

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2014, 12:27:57 PM »

I was just discussing this yesterday, Delores, and how the Constitution's definition is quite narrow.
The argument made was that it depends on the interpretation of 'levying war', since what's happening now is an abolishment of borders without consent of the people, permitting non citizens to pour in - and now a new tactic, to be brought in - without screening for disease or criminal element or skills, etc. and to, in truth, steal the people's money. (not that there's much left)
To that end, there is no one in Congress who has the morality to stop this. Frankly, they don't have the power to do so anyway. We had a de facto coup long before this issue. There are too many constitutional abandonments to count and it seems we are ruled by force now. In other words, as badly as this hurts the American people - and some say it is the camel's back straw - it's only one of a thousand drops in the bucket.

Phyllo · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2014, 06:44:00 PM »

I would call it treason. The government is allowing all these illeagles into our country. I would call it waging war on it's citizens. The congress does nothing about it but talk.

I give credit to the citizens of the small town in CA that blocked the buses. The buses should deliver their passengers on the White House lawn and we will see how the inhabitants of that house likes the invasion of their space.

They don't have to live with what they do to us.

Marlelar · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2014, 10:23:26 PM »

True, I was using the word loosely, not in the technical sense. Technically I think only a person of flesh and blood can commit treason, but in the sense of aiding in a soft war against the people of this country I do not think term is ill applied.

We ARE being invaded, and those invaders are being given aid and comfort directed by our own elected officials. Make no mistake, this is a war. Not a hot war, not a cold war, but as someone else once said, a soft war. I fear it may turn into a hot war before too long.

Marsha