We need to add in that the Fourteenth Amendment says:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.While you might want to find some authority for your claim to be able to "fight" the United States, you cannot use the US Constitution, or Constitutional framework, as an authority.
In fact, it makes it pretty clear that you are not a patriot. Instead, but by the Constitutional definition above, you are a traitor and engaging in treason.
“What if your own Government is using more force and more coercion on It’s own citizens for the purpose of achieving It’s own political ends? Is that Government engaged in terrorism?” Edwin Viera
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
If we freely elected those kind of leaders, we can vote them out.
DeleteIf voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
DeleteEmma Goldman
orlin sellers
What I'm seeing is if I was once an elected official, or a military officer where an oath is sworn to uphold the Constitution. And then if I engage in rebellion, insurrection, or given aid to them, then I cant go back and become an elected official or officer again unless approved by the House by a 2/3's majority.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, one of the ultimate Oath keepers, Gen. Robert E. Lee had his citizenship restored by Congress in 1975. And it was actually enforced against a Socialist politician to prevent him taking the office he was elected to.
"Section 3 was used to prevent Socialist Party of America member Victor L. Berger, convicted of violating the Espionage Act for his anti-militarist views, from taking his seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 and 1920."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Participants_in_rebellion
So, um, have any Oath Keepers been accused of having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"?
ReplyDeleteIf not, is there some kind of point you're trying to make here, Laci (first time for everything, I suppose)?
Oh, and as for the lack of any Constitutional protection of a right to rebellion, that's kinda beside the point, isn't it? A successful rebellion would make government recognition of its legitimacy rather superfluous, and survivors of a failed one are unlikely to expect gentle treatment by the victorious government
The right of revolution is not a Constitutional right, but a moral one, and it's a right, remember, that Abraham Lincoln acknowledged (bold emphasis added):
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
This from the president who started a Civil War because some States wanted to opt out of the Union. Life is full of irony.
DeleteYou're right none have been arrested, nor have the traitors who bloviate every day on Fox News. But if you think these idiots don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, you're lying again.
DeleteBut if you think these [courageous, loyal Americans] don't give aid and comfort to the enemy . . .
DeleteUm--what "enemy"?
. . . you're lying again.
I'd have to lie the first time, in order to be "lying again," and you've fared quite poorly in finding that first time. I predict that this poor performance will continue.
But if you think [gratuitous, puerile name-calling] don't give aid and comfort to the enemy, you're lying again.
DeleteAnd come to think of it, how can what I think make me a liar, anyway?
Yeah, what enemy? The context here is defending the people of the United States. Are you calling the citizens "the enemy"?
Delete"And come to think of it, how can what I think make me a liar, anyway?"
DeleteNyaa nyaa nyaa, I didn't say it, so it's not a lie.
Nyaa nyaa nyaa, I didn't say it, so it's not a lie.
DeleteBasically. Sure, I've heard the expression "lying to yourself," but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me--certainly not literal sense, at any rate. Even if it were possible for me to "lie to myself," though, that's nobody's business but my own. I owe no one accountability for my thoughts.
If citizens want to overthrow the government because of what...their own disagreement with what....a difference of political ideology? At what point are they justified to overthrow their own government? Crimes are committed all the time by politicians in power. Do we use the system we have to stop those criminals, or do we let citizens (mob) take over? Some of these citizen militias want to overthrow the government just because they THINK Obama is a socialist. If they disagree with the government let them secede. Would you overthrow the government because a majority of the citizens disagree with what the government is doing? By that gauge the people would have overthrown the government many times over the centuries. Please give me the details and circumstances when it would be OK to overthrow the government.
DeleteIf they disagree with the government let them secede.
DeleteWell that's something I didn't expect to see, Anon.
I'd still like to know when and for what reason you think an overthrow of the government at gun point is justified.
DeleteI'd still like to know when and for what reason you think an overthrow of the government at gun point is justified.
DeleteLots of things, Anon. A ban of so-called "assault weapons" would certainly qualify as moral justification to use as much violence as necessary to destroy the government that would commit such an act of monstrous evil.
What bullshit. We have a representative government and if that's what people want and you disagree with it there is a legal path for you to take instead of taking guns against the government. You want what you want and fuck the majority you will simply pull your gun out and start shooting.
DeleteFundamental human rights are worth dying for, Anon--and worth killing for, as well. I won't surrender any of mine simply because rights become less popular than serfdom.
DeleteYes, Kurt, I know what you mean. Requiring background checks or limiting magazine size equals being a serf. Could you be any more melodramatic about it?
DeleteOh, and several comments up thread you completely derailed the discussion. We were talking about whether spewing Obama hate daily to an audience of millions, like Fox News does, constitutes traitorous giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You diverted us on my use of the phrase "if you think." Nice move. You are the master at diversion and obfuscation.
To ensure we avoid the issue, you threw another diversion in there. "What enemy," says you with a straight face, as if you really don't know what I'm talking about.
Yes, Kurt, I know what you mean. Requiring background checks or limiting magazine size equals being a serf. Could you be any more melodramatic about it?
DeleteI realize that your standards of liberty are significantly lower than mine, and mine for "safety" and "law and order" lower than yours. I don't think there's any resolving those differences.
Oh, and several comments up thread you completely derailed the discussion.
I thought I stayed on topic pretty well.
We were talking about whether spewing Obama hate daily to an audience of millions, like Fox News does, constitutes traitorous giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I was referring to the Oath Keepers, rather than Fox News. I realize you had mentioned Fox in the comment previous to mine, but that's the first time that had come up in the discussion, and I thought of it more as an aside, rather than the main thrust of the debate, which I thought was still the Oath Keepers.
You diverted us on my use of the phrase "if you think." Nice move. You are the master at diversion and obfuscation.
You accuse people of "lying" at the drop of a hat, but I don't think I had yet seen even you previously argue that one could "lie," just by virtue of his or her thoughts. That strikes me as a dangerous road to go down, and I felt compelled to challenge it.
To ensure we avoid the issue, you threw another diversion in there.
You do realize, don't you, that the choice to respond, or not, to my comments is entirely yours? Even if I had wanted the discussion to "avoid the issue," I had very little power to make it do so.
"What enemy," says you with a straight face, as if you really don't know what I'm talking about.
I have no idea. Am I "the enemy" (if so, the U.S. is probably pretty safe)? Mike Vanderboegh? You've lost me completely. The Oath Keepers, by vowing not to obey any unconstitutional (and thus illegal) orders, are aiding and comforting only those who would be harmed by the implementation of such orders. How such people could be "the enemy" of the U.S. is entirely beyond me.
But since you seem (for whatever reason) to be reluctant to come out and name this mysterious "enemy," perhaps you can help me out with just one very broad hint: is this "enemy" external, or internal?
DeleteAs a typical anti government gun loon you reject the laws we live by and solve our disagreements with. American history proves your stance to not work and is illegal (criminal). Prohibition is a perfect example. First it passed then it was rescinded, both actions by popular majority and through the legal processes set up by the Constitution.
DeleteI am not, and never have been "anti government" (nor a "loon" of any type), Anon. I am very pro-government--when that government abides by the Constitutional limits on its power. Ours, of course, hasn't done so in a very long time.
Delete"Prohibition is a perfect example. First it passed then it was rescinded, both actions by popular majority and through the legal processes set up by the Constitution."
DeleteI agree Anon. I think Prohibition is a perfect example why an insurrection is unlikely. And the process worked as it should.
"Prohibition is a perfect example. First it passed then it was rescinded, both actions by popular majority and through the legal processes set up by the Constitution."
DeleteAnd because so many people disregarded it that it kicked off a crime wave and enforcement nightmare. Bad example, for what you are trying to say.
?? TS ??
DeleteWhat is it you think I'm saying?
Oath Keepers spout the same Obama hate that Fox news does.
DeleteThe enemy I'm referring to is extremist Islam. You are full of shit, as usual, when you say you didn't know that's what I meant. That's one of your tactics, yours and TS, make the discussion as tedious and difficult as possible.
Do you think radical Islamists are unaware of the extreme anti-Obama shit that's to be found all over the internet by Americans? Do you think they disapprove of it, or do they take comfort and support in it?
The enemy I'm referring to is extremist Islam. You are full of shit, as usual, when you say you didn't know that's what I meant.
DeleteI had no idea. I actually find myself surprised to discover that you are capable of explicitly acknowledging the existence of extremist Islam.
So saying mean things about the president is "treason" (a capital crime, remember, Mr. No Capital Punishment, Ever!) now, because we are (eternally) "at war"?
If saying things that the "enemy" (in an undeclared "war") approves of is "treason," should Jane Fonda have been locked up (and maybe executed) for her little photo-op with the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun? 'Cause I gotta tell you, I cannot imagine how anything either the Oath Keepers (and what "Obama hate" have they "spout[ed]," anyway) or the Fox News talking heads say could compare to that.
You are full of shit, as usual, when you say you didn't know that's what I meant.
DeleteBoy, this prediction sure didn't take long to pan out:
I have little doubt that I won't have long to wait before you again call me a "liar" for expressing an entirely subjective opinion that you don't like . . .
OK, so it wasn't exactly a subjective opinion of mine that you're calling a "lie;" it's just that your confidence in your ability to read my mind is so great that you feel free to call me "full of shit" when I tell you what I don't know. I figure that's close enough to my prediction.
I would think, Mikeb, that it should be pretty clear to you by now that you and I hold very different world views. Those world views are so different, I submit, as to cause some difficulty in understanding one another. I certainly don't mind admitting to often being utterly baffled by your thought process ("voluntary" means "constrained by law" comes to mind here). It's almost as if we are speaking two different languages that share the same words, but in which those words have different meanings.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that despite the vast differences in the way we think, you know enough about what's going on in my head to call me a "liar" when I inform you that no, I do not think what you believe I do.
Just one more aspect of your thought process that I find utterly baffling.
Do you think radical Islamists are unaware of the extreme anti-Obama shit that's to be found all over the internet by Americans? Do you think they disapprove of it, or do they take comfort and support in it?
DeleteBy the way, Mikeb, if saying things that radical Islamists "take comfort and support in" is "treason," do you realize that you're making it a capital crime to say "Insha'Allah"?
I find that to be sick and evil, Mikeb.
"?? TS ??
DeleteWhat is it you think I'm saying?"
It seemed like you were trying to say the American public accepted prohibition and followed the law, and only worked through legal channels like the 21st Amendment- as if people didn't "reject the law".
This is why I am against a gun ban, yet, gun loons keep saying I am.
DeleteThe point is we have an obligation to follow the law, not take the law in to our own hands just because we disagree with it.
"Lots of things, Anon. A ban of so-called "assault weapons" would certainly qualify as moral justification to use as much violence as necessary to destroy the government that would commit such an act of monstrous evil.'
You don't have a right to decide to overthrow the government because you disagree with a law, or policy. We have a process to to voice grievances. I'm saying Kurt and others are wrong (criminal) if they go outside the law (or at the point of a gun) to change and defy government elected by the people.
So do you have any line in the sand, Anon? Would any tyranny be intolerable to you, despite it's support by 51% of the electorate?
Delete"It's almost as if we are speaking two different languages that share the same words, but in which those words have different meanings."
DeleteThat comment at 5:43 pm was so eloquent and well thought-out that my hat's off to you. Of course it was all lies and bullshit, but I truly enjoyed it.
Thanks, I guess. Tell me, though, what part of it is "lies," or were you just generously reinforcing my point about using the same words, but with different meanings?
DeleteWe now have a president that only has a 42% approval rating. Does that mean to you Kurt that we can march into the White House with our guns and oust him, or kill him?
DeleteYour right to a gun is not infringed because there are laws about the type of weapon, ammunition, or other detailed specifics.
Republicans who are trying to stop people from voting is a much bigger offense against the Constitution and the preservation of our liberty, than whether, or not you can have a 100 round magazine, or an automatic weapon.
We now have a president that only has a 42% approval rating. Does that mean to you Kurt that we can march into the White House with our guns and oust him, or kill him?
DeleteYou can try that if you want. Sounds like a bad idea to me, but hey--knock yourself out.
I'll own the weapons I want, and no one will stop me.
You are the one who claimed if the majority disagreed it was OK to bring out the guns and violently overthrow the government. Thanks for that gun loon (criminal) thinking.
DeleteYou are the one who claimed if the majority disagreed it was OK to bring out the guns and violently overthrow the government.
DeleteReading comprehension is an unattainable dream for you, isn't it, Anon?
"Lots of things, Anon. A ban of so-called "assault weapons" would certainly qualify as moral justification to use as much violence as necessary to destroy the government that would commit such an act of monstrous evil."
DeleteYour words, not mine. My reading comprehension is fine asshole. By the way, we have had a ban on assault weapons.
So there it is in your own words. Like the author of this blog questioned the other day, why do you have to lie?
DeleteJust like SS who denied multiple times he said something right up until I copied his own statement for him to read. Then the insincere apology. It's convenient for you gun loons to deny what you said even in the same thread.
A ban of so-called "assault weapons" has nothing to do with "the majority disagree[ing]."
DeleteStill haven't lied. Oh, and thanks for the "asshole"--as always, it's an honor to be despised by the despicable, and you certainly qualify, Anon.
You started with the name calling garbage. If you don't like it, don't do it. I respond in kind, that's the best you deserve.
DeleteSo majority, or not you are willing to overthrow the government at gun point because of an assault weapons ban, but we had that ban, where were you and your gun to stop that ban and overthrow the government? You do think like a criminal.
"A ban of so-called "assault weapons" would certainly qualify as moral justification to use as much violence as necessary to destroy the government that would commit such an act of monstrous evil."
DeleteAnonymous, I don't think this is a good example of lying. There have been many from Kurt, but this isn't one of them. This is an example of blustering tough-guy talk from an impotent (first definition) gun rights fanatic desperate to impress.
And the intelligence of someone who wrote that comes into question. Where was all the effort to "destroy the government" during the last national assault weapons ban?
If you don't like it . . .
DeleteQuite the contrary--I'm quite grateful for the "despised by the despicable" honor. If you want me to be insulted, you'd be better off telling me you respect me.
Where was all the effort to "destroy the government" during the last national assault weapons ban?
There wasn't one, but as I said, it would have been morally justified. A new one, particularly one without a grandfather clause, might be a different story. In the internet's infancy, mobilizing the militia was a good deal more difficult. Besides, so-called "assault weapons" have gotten far more popular than they were in 1994, ironically, probably due to some degree to the ban.
You are simply wrong Kurt. It is not morally justified to overthrow the government just because of an assault weapons ban. Your right to buy, own, and use a gun is not infringed because of an assault weapons ban. You just refuse to be a law abiding citizen and work through the legal process of eliminating such a ban, instead you take the criminals way and pull out your gun.
DeleteIt is not morally justified to overthrow the government just because of an assault weapons ban.
DeleteSo again I ask, Anon--do you have any line in the sand? Any tyranny that would be intolerable to you, even if 51% of the electorate supported it? Any freedom you would fight to protect from a government that wanted to trample it?
I seriously doubt it.
Kurt, you have no clue how to work legally through our legal system so it doesn't surprise me you don't understand. I tried to explain, but your criminal thinking won't allow you to comprehend.
DeleteActually, Anon, it's my intelligence, morality, sanity, decency, humanity, and honor that make you utterly incomprehensible to me. And I promise I'm enormously grateful.
DeleteTypical Kurt, that's how a criminal defends his criminal behavior. You got it down. Your a GREAT gun loon!
DeleteYour [sic] a GREAT [liberty advocate]!
DeleteAnd you're a GREAT representative of the intellectual capacity of the typical "gun control" advocate.
At least I know how the legal system works in this country and know I don't have a right to take arms against my government just because I disagree with some law. If I disagree with some law, I have the right to support and elect those that would legally change that law.
DeleteI love the 14th amendment. The author of the citizenship clause clearly states why Obama was not eligible to be president. Too bad nobody cared.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
The main lie was your pretending to not understand that I was talking about extremist Islam when I said "enemy." Then you covered that with lots on bullshit.
ReplyDeleteOf course I can't read your mind, but when I don't believe what you say, I call it like that.
Of course I can't read your mind . . .
DeleteAnd simultaneously . . .
The main lie was your pretending to not understand that I was talking about extremist Islam when I said "enemy."
So, "of course" you can't read my mind, but when I point out that I can't read yours, I'm lying.
Got it.