First off, I have to point out that, even though all government Officers (all three Branches on both State & Federal levels) must swear/affirm a
legally-binding Oath to obey the Constitution, the USA is Constitutionally & legally bound to be a Republic form of government...Specifically termed
as a "Constitutional Republic." Before we can judge the difference between Freedom of Speech & Treason, we must, by default, see what the
In the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech is not
specifically defined, therefore we must look into the meanings of this term by how it was
defined at the time they used this term
. Another way to determine what the framers of the 1st Amendment actually meant
is to also look
at the Congressional Journals at that time to see how they spoke during the debates that concerned the Bill for the 1st Amendment before they
actually legislated it into an Amendment
is the predominant opinion
of scholars as to the primary intent
of "Freedom of Speech":
...the First Amendment is the single most important part of the Constitution. It protects some of the most basic human rights and reflects a view
of the dangerous places government might tread.
The ability to speak your mind is a right that Americans take for granted. Imagine being too frightened by the possible consequences of speaking out
to actually do so. Your opinion would not matter - even your vote would be corrupted. Even as important is the right to petition your government - not
only can you have an opinion about your government, the government must listen to you...
So if this is correct, then it cannot be considered "treason" to speak out against the government (at least, the USA government)...Should the
government itself be getting out of line. Should the government sanction a citizen for exercising a fundamental Right, then the government itself
would be committing a violation of its own legally-binding Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution. This is what the Right to Freedom of Speech
meant to the Founding Forefathers.
Even though the Freedom of Speech was not specifically defined
within the body of the
or the Bill of Rights directly
, the term "Treason" is specifically defined
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1
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
Bold emphasis above is mine.
However, the modern definition
is somewhat different:
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war
Source: New Merriam-Webster's
So, in order to reduce the confusion between these two definitions, we must first figure out the difference between Constitutional Treason &
So, by the "regular" definition of treason, the federal government as it exists & operates now
have committed (in the past & the present)
various acts of treason against the Constitutionally/legally-binding Oaths of Office...They have, in effect, "overthrown" the Constitutional
Republic of America & took power for themselves, calling it a Democracy! Granted, the Constitution itself contains certain elements
Democracy, but also defines certain limitations & restrictions
to all areas of government, even the Democratic areas.
Also, by granting undue influence & privileges to Big Corporations (BTW, corporations are not required to swear/affirm any Oath to the Constitutional
Republic) & by continually degrading the Bill of Rights (through all three Branches of the government), the current government actually commits
Constitutionally-defined Treason against the People & the Nation by "giving them (the corporations) Aid and Comfort" even to the extent that the
government continues to commit more violations
against the Constitutional Rights of the People.
Ironic, isn't it? That the government as it operates today (under excessive corporate influence & control) actually commits the same crimes (through
the use of oppressive-economy) against the People as the English Charters did, which was one of the very root-causes for the Colonies to fight the War
of Independence! In the Declaration of Independence
, one of the
Indictments against the King of Britain was, "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:"
Remember the Alamo, hell! Remember the Boston Tea Party
Originally posted by astronomine
It is good that they are here and watching, because it says that we are on to something and trains us to dissect posts and thoughts to reveal the
truth and the core...
...We will constantly be tested in the future, assuringly to a higher, more persistent degree than even now, so I am glad for the practice to dance
around these undercover folks. Welcome to ATS ya'll!
I also figure that, if I post something juuuuuussst right
, maybe I could get one of these "monitors" to change his mind & turn against his
own corrupt masters...We really do need more whistleblowers!
Originally posted by Demandred
...congress seem to be able to make the rules up as they go along.
Well, the President does too...Even though Article 1, Section 1 clearly states:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
What? Doesn't Bush understand what the word "all" means? What else are "Executive Orders" & "Signing Statements" doing, except to usurp the
Powers of Legislation away from Congress?
Not to mention that the Judiciary (having been "getting stacked" in favor of political agendas
since Carter's term) has been
"re-interpreting" laws & previous court-precedence against
Originally posted by Byrd
...I usually don't try to make more than one or two posts in a topic now that I'm a moderator...
why I haven't seen much of you around here lately...I gotta admit I miss how you used to get more involved as a poster
because you're a Mod doesn't mean you can't post as a regular person too...I don't see how the two "sides" can't be reconciled. You've always
brought good, solid info before & I've always appreciated that.
Since one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist...
...Have I just been exercising Free Speech, or have I been committing treason?