White House Petition To Try Dianne Feinstein For Treason Crosses Threshold For Response

Originally posted by sandman441
www.huffingtonpost.com...

A petition submitted to the White House's "We the People" website calling for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to be tried in a federal court for treason has reached the requisite 25,000 signatures for an administration response.


Well looks like things are heating up, I am very curious as to if this even gets addressed. If anything I hope this shows the poiticians we are all fed up with their crap.

edit on 25-1-2013 by sandman441 because: added the link, I thought it was automatic

I really wouldn't say things are "heating up." I really wouldn't say things are heating up. At all. Maybe just a bunch of people banging on pots.

Of course, i don't put much faith in why these petitions would have any relevance of change, if 25k or 100k. It requires a response, as per the "rules?" Something as simple as, "We've received your petition and we'll take it under consideration." Case Closed. Or, "We've reviewed you petition, thank you for your feedback." That *is* a response. Just because a response is entitled doesn't mean that response will be as important or actionary as the petitioners hope or expect.

And frankly, those petitions mean nothing.

Given the quote defining treason in constitutional terms, I'd have to say that petitioning for Feinstein's prosecution on the charge of Treason is groundless. However, the charge of PERJURY - or the appropriate federal statute - seems justified as her actions in these matter consistently violates her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Not just the Second Amendment her folks, also the Tenth - and if registration comes about there goes the Fourth and Fifth as well.

Of course, we'll never see any sitting or former elected federal official tried for anything in these United States, nor any international court as the USA doesn't recognize the World Court or any other authority. Omnipotence doesn't seem to be only a characteristic of god when it comes to the corporate entity governing the USA.

ganjoa

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by sandman441

 

Looks like the gov just identified 25k new anti-federalists ... I'm sure they'll be the first to go.

Anti-federalist terrorists

aaaand this is why I'm not an NRA member or on any other database....except ATS ...crap!

reply to post by jaynkeel

I have never let anyone walk all over me and won't start anytime soon. And I refuse to live my life in fear of being on some list or in some camp because I spoke my mind. Suppose that could be the death of me oneday.

It's not even so much about being stealthy or sneaky. I'm having a hard time communicating my thoughts on this and that's my bad entirely. It's about choosing battles carefully for ones that mean something and winning is actually accomplishing something in the end.

If this petition gets the 100,000 signatures (or they honor the 25k based on start date) for a 100% success.....all these names are on the record and DHS reports now for being dissidents strong enough to make such a rash statement and sign names to it. Yet, what was actually accomplished? That's the part I look at first.

#1. Is a battle one that can be won?

#2. Is victory worth the sacrifice of fighting it?

In some cases? The above is an absolute YES. After all..being outspoken in my case hardly covers the added visibility and lists I was added to by standing with Occupy. I couldn't have known HOW extensive it would be at time, but I suspected. Screw 'em... That was a battle worth fighting because I deeply believed in the outcome if it could have been carried to that conclusion. It wasn't...but I don't regret the stand. It was still worth the outcome and cost I'll may someday have come back on me when I least expect it from my choices there.

That's where my thinking is. I'm absolutely never going to take being walked on...and I'll go on bent knee for no one. I think we have the same thinking, just different criteria for what battles are worthy of the effort and why.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



2nd

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

If this petition gets the 100,000 signatures (or they honor the 25k based on start date) for a 100% success.....all these names are on the record and DHS reports now for being dissidents strong enough to make such a rash statement and sign names to it. Yet, what was actually accomplished? That's the part I look at first.

Doing nothing is the greatest threat to your 2nd Amendment Rights. Period. Showing the Traitors of America that there are many American voices in opposition to their acts of Treason is the sure way to stopping them in the soonest manner.

Having a touch of paranoia is fine, but being overly paranoid resulting from ignorance that leads to inactivity, is the greatest fail for this cause. Such is textbook advise of that a shill would offer...

Make no mistake, they have access to your purchases and on record your firearm, and firearm related buys such as ammo, rifle cases, scopes, etc, etc, etc. One of multiple methods that "they" know which Americans have firearms. They already KNOW the firearm owners in America. The voices in opposition do not make for any negative difference in the matter, and only helps stop the Traitors and their acts of Treason.

Ignorance and baseless paranoia, resulting in inactivity towards a good cause, is a sure method of losing the battle quickly.

I'm no more in favor of gun control/registration/confiscation than the next gun owner. In fact, I'll go so far as to say, I'm less in favor of it than most...

Having said that?

How is advocating a change in U.S. law treason? Because you disagree with the notion being put forward? So? I probably disagree with many of you on many issues...which of us is the traitor? Me? You? Both of us?

The word "treason" is tossed around way, way too easily by some of you. A disagreement on political matters doesn't make for treason in and of itself...

If you are concerned enough to start bandying the word "treason", or "traitor" around, you're concerned enough to get involved in the politics of the matter. ...and not just signing some petition.

Would you look at that...25,000+ people smart enough to use a computer, yet too stupid to grasp the definition of treason.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Oh how glib. The legal definition of treason includes "actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the nation or conduct which undermines the government or the national security". It could be argued, based upon the histories of other nations where public disarmament took place, that our national security would be undermined by disarminig or severely limiting the collective firepower of the American people. It would weaken the deterrent to a potential foreign occupier or more importantly to a tyrranical take-over of the federal government. The 1946 McKinn County event is illustrative in this regard.

reply to post by jtma508


No. Treason is limited the actual levying of war against the US or adhering to enemies of the US by giving them aid and comfort. Treason does not include hypothetical scenarios. Feinstein has not committed treason.

reply to post by jtma508


Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy. This proposed legislation, which I disagree with violently, does not fall under treasonable acts. I get that you disagree with it, so too do I, but it's not treason. Stupid politics? Yes.

reply to post by sandman441


And this is a perfect example of why charges / crimes and prosecution is done in a court of law and not in a court of public opinion.

The petition can have 200 million signatures and it would still mean nothing. We have checks and balances for a reason. As much as Feinstein and the others piss me off, I am not willing to throw the constitution out the window simply because she, and the people who signed the petition, are ignorant when it comes to the law.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Not true. Although unsuccessful, there have been a number of cases of treason brought by Congress that fall outside that narrow definition including during the Whiskey Rebellion and the Burr Conspiracy. Their being unsuccessful is irrelevant since not even members of the Confederacy were successfully prosecuted.

Perhaps indicting her for sedition would be more appropriate. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts and 1917 Espionage Act are examples of Congressional statutes which define sedition to include "subversion of a constitution".

Well

Feinstein is waging a war against we the people our rights clearly defined in the constitution it is not only a second amendment issue, but the 4th,5th,9th, and 10th amendments,

The peoples rights are above the government they always have been, and anyone who thinks governmnet is above the people is a traitor, and is comittng treason.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by jtma508

 

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy. This proposed legislation, which I disagree with violently, does not fall under treasonable acts. I get that you disagree with it, so too do I, but it's not treason. Stupid politics? Yes.

edit on 1/25/2013 by seagull because: Dab speeling...

Treason (Noun):
The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The action of betraying someone or something.

Synonyms
treachery - betrayal - perfidy - disloyalty - sellout

Clearly her proposal IS an act of Treason against the American citizens.

[color=skyblue]Amendment II of Bill of Rights
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There is no exception listed here for the firearms she wishes to take from the American citizens.

Our forefathers are abundantly clear on this subject based upon their quotations. It is abundantly clear that she is INFRINGING upon the Rights of American citizens.

Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

“Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”

Sarah Brady quote


Definitely their goal. I would call that treason. Proving intent would be difficult but the fact is less than 400 people died from being shot with a rifle in 2011. The above is the agenda. They could not care less about saving lives.

I thought I'd take a moment to get the actual letter and text of the Constitution on this one. Treason is unique in criminal code in that it's not simply a part of the United States Code for Federal Law. This one is spelled out in specifics right in the Constitution itself, by those who wrote it.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution reads as follows:

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.

Source

Now Feinstein may be many things and I may have many opinions of her. I may even think she'd best serve the nation in retirement in an old folks home somewhere nice and quiet...far far away from dangerous things like a Senate computer where bills can be written and offered.

By the definition though? Her desire to redefine how the nation would see the 2nd outside the Super Court isn't treason. Treason is a legally defined thing and she doesn't fit. It's an over-reach of Congressional power, IMO but that'll be for the Roberts court to decide if this ever passes. I'm sure it'll come before the Supremes in record time.

reply to post by ResistTreason


Understood. But that isn't the legal definition of treason. And the petition seeks to try her for treason (a violation of the law). Although I'm not a lawyer, the only way that could be made to stick ( and there have been very few successful prosecutions of treason) would be to prove that her act would diminish national security --- since they don't constitute the traditional 'violence against the government'.

Bradley Manning has been charged with 'aiding the enemy' which falls under treason and is a capital offense because he supplied classified information to WikiLeaks. Now if he had provided this information directly to the Taliban or another of our identified enemies this would be a slam-dunk. But he didn't. His actions caused it to be published in general thereby aiding, in general, our enemies. That's unusual in a charge of treason. Typically the defendant is charged with aiding a specific enemy.

So, the federal prosecutors obviously feel this act constitutes treason. Could the argument that diminishing the citizens' ability to defend itself by limiting high-powered weapons be similarly considered an act that weakens the national defense?

reply to post by sandman441


Last week, the White house raised the threshold for a required response on any petition to 100,000 signatures.

Threshold raised NBC News

reply to post by sandman441


White house petitions now require 100,000 signatures. This requirement was a recent change.