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

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ResistTreason
 


Laws are enacted that infringe upon the Constitution on a fairly regular basis. Most of which I'd disagree with. The Constitution gets changed/amended as well.

Because you disagree doesn't make it treason. That word is used far too much around here.

We agree that this is not good. I think we're disagreeing on semantics, not the core of the issue.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The petition site is a big joke.

Just there to make people believe they have some say so in government.


That's what elections are for. This is just a way to feel out what the people are thinking
edit on 25-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
She isn't guilty of treason. She is however guilty of violating her oath of office to uphold the Constitution. But that would be up to the Senate to sanction her. However, if the bill should happen to pass, it could be considered by some to be a high crime and therefore she would lose her senatorial protections from arrest.

Irony here is that if the petition to the government (in particular to the Senate) was ignored and no appointed Law Enforcement Officer would choose to arrest her, then she can be arrested by any citizen of the US by using the Second Amendment to arrest those that have committed a felonious crime in their presence. And unlike LEO's, US citizens have the entire US as their jurisdiction for making a citizen's arrest and may do so without asking for help from any law enforcement agency.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by ResistTreason
 


Laws are enacted that infringe upon the Constitution on a fairly regular basis. Most of which I'd disagree with. The Constitution gets changed/amended as well.

Because you disagree doesn't make it treason. That word is used far too much around here.

We agree that this is not good. I think we're disagreeing on semantics, not the core of the issue.
]

its not put in practice nearly enouhg



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ResistTreason
 


While I applaud the effort to define the term (its more than what most people do), here is the actual law -

18 USC 2381 - Treason


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


US Constitution - Article III Section III - Judiciary

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.


I underlined the requirement above in order to move a persons action into the realm of violation. The next problem comes from Article 1 Section 6 Clause 1 of the Constitution - The Speach and Debate Clause.. Introducing a bill that is unconstitutional does not constitute a violation of the law. Voting on an unconstutional law, whether in favor or against, is not a violation of the law.

The US Congress can pass legislation stating the 2nd amendment no longer applies, and they would not be doing anything illegal. The reason for this is its not the job of Congress to determine if a law they are wanting to pass is constuitutional or unconstitutional. Its assumed all laws passed are legal and are in compliance with the Constitution until such time the law is in force and a person has:

* - Been directly affected by said law - IE went to buy a gun and was turned away.
* - Challenges the law based on a constituitional violation argument, which is one of the rare legal arguments where a law can be challenged before a person is directly affected (this came up in the Obamacare debate).


With this being said, I am all for people being pissed about government action, and actually wanting to do something other than just complain about it and stop there. So long as the actions being taken are in compliance with the law, I fully support the people. When people start to ignore the law, then they are no better than the members of Congress whom they accuse of violating the law.

just my 2 cents...



edit on 25-1-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
The petition site is a big joke.

Just there to make people believe they have some say so in government.



Yep, what this one says!!
The petitions that do get a response just get the obligatory, Sorry we understand yada yada yada, nothing we can do about it sorry, have a nice day.
It is just a tool the whithouse uses to get the pulse of the people on some key issues.
We get nowhere by asking.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
edit on 26-1-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 


It would get more of a real response, if the State Residents did a 'recall' of their Senator.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Media and Elected Officials pay attention to the petitions. They accomplish nothing in the long haul but they're more a message saying Hey, we're watching you. We know what's going on and we oppose it.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

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


West Point think tank.. No, a US soldier wouldn't fire on me.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm just curious, do you think the founding fathers were extremists? You do know that they used to tar and feather people that tried to take their guns right? The US Government was created for the people by the people. We do not answer to the Government. We do not serve the Government. The Government answers to and serves the people.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

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


This is the very reason that a Direct Democracy is dangerous and I am glad that the United States isn't one yet. People petitioning to do this sort of nonsense. I am glad that the rule of Law is still somewhat intact to not let these "petitions" run our country.

I don't like Senator Feinstein's politics but this is just ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wrabbit -- it is a ploy to push for more national control (abolish Federalism) and give the People the illusion that their voice is heard -- even more so than currently. Politicians have been pressing hard since the 17th Amendment passed to abolish the Electoral College and thus complete their transformation from a republic to a Direct Democracy.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm just curious, do you think the founding fathers were extremists? You do know that they used to tar and feather people that tried to take their guns right?


When? Show me an instance of this happening.... ETA: specifically to "taking their guns"


The US Government was created for the people by the people. We do not answer to the Government. We do not serve the Government. The Government answers to and serves the people.


Except such a phrase wasn't used until 1863 in President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address....other than that, the rest of your statement is valid to an extent. The Federal Government is created by and agreed to by the States and its' People.
edit on 26-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

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


While many need no help understanding the jeopardy they are putting themselves in, it would be wise to reflect on what you post here and elsewhere. If the comments you make can be used against you in some way by TPTB, they certainly might well compromise your liberties. Choose your words wisely. As laws are constantly being convoluted, you might well find yourself under attack even if you are one of the noblest of patriots.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm just curious, do you think the founding fathers were extremists? You do know that they used to tar and feather people that tried to take their guns right? The US Government was created for the people by the people. We do not answer to the Government. We do not serve the Government. The Government answers to and serves the people.

Well, I have no doubt in my mind the Founding Fathers were extremist terrorists to the British command and troops in the field. However, that was kinda the point too. I don't recall history recording any U.S. sappers making their way over to England to make things a little less Jolly there by blowing up markets or killing Englishmen in the street for what their military was doing in the Colonies of the time though ...so extremist by today's standard and in this context? No. I wouldn't say they were, any more than any underdog fighting for national independence is.

Terrorist vs. Freedom fighter isn't merely defined by which side one stands on...but tactics and methods, since you bring it up. To the extent American regulars in the Continental Army committed nasty acts upon the British, it was more than returned in kind ...and THEN some by the nasty units of the British command. Different times and impossible to make subjective judgement with our values to their actions in war, IMO.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: spacing change



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Oh come on. All these anti gun nuts from Australia and England claim that the government isn't out to get us. So they must be right seeing as they are all knowing and high on their horse. Besides to hell with them is what I say anymore, nowdays it's just to see how many lists you can get on right? I know exactly where they can stick their lists!!!


I've said this before on the subject and it bears repeating, IMO. I'm not going to suddenly change my tune or be agreeable to everything I've opposed in public because I've been outspoken for too many years now. Here and elsewhere. There's no benefit trying to pretend at this point. For those in the same boat (many here and around the net)...might as well make the best of things. Tho I still wouldn't sign that.


For people who have not been really outspoken and opinionated in a major way? Well, let's say if I had it to do over and knew how this would end up as we stand here today....I'd have kept my big mouth shut starting years ago. It would be better......as this turns real, to be unknown, unremarkable and generally anonymous I think. That doesn't mean not voicing an opinion but signing one's name to a declaration like that? Basically in Obama's personal in-box? It's gutsy. I will say that for those on the petition.

After all, it's not a race to who gets to a FEMA / Reeducation camp first. I'm sure there will be beds a'plenty for us all. Some may just get there sooner to make it all comfy and home-like before the rest. (I get the bunk closest to the door, just so everyone knows in advance)


Yeah, my thinking on the subject of these petitions is simply: if there is no way on God's Green Earth a petition is going to result in any sort of positive action, why arm a potential anti-American cabal (not saying that's who's in power, but maybe now, maybe at some point in the future) with specific information which could lead to your secret arrest and indefinite detention and/or execution (care of the PATRIOT Acts' suspension of the Constitution.?) not that they would need your name on a petition. A personal enemy's "tip" (aka lie) is all that is necessary for you to be legally "disappeared" forever. Not truly legally, but in the eyes of those enforcing such anti-American laws as the PATRIOT Acts and subsequent nefarious anti-American legislation, it is, and that's all they need.

Like the point you're making (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), most of us have said things in support of the Constitution, in support of freedom, in support of the US over the UN, or a future theoretical global dictstorship. That's more than enough already, but I'm not personally of the "where do I sign up?" mindset when it comes to theoretical "concentration camps" for "patriots." especially when these petitions will accomplish absolutely nothing. 300 million Americans could sign a petition to ban the federal reserve, or to put a 1000% tarriff on all imported goods while doing away with income and property taxes. The most we could expect from either is, "we've read the text of the petition, and this isn't going to work. Thanks for the idea, but its not going to happen."

Now, a petition to request that the National guard be stationed at elementary schools, or that medical "herbs" be legalized nationwide, or that all potholes big enough to be capable of causing bodily harm through car accidents must be repaired within 2 years of first being reported...those might go somewhere, at least accomplish something, or start a debate whi h could lead to action.

Not only do I feel the petitions are a waste of time, there IS potential downside should a totalitarian regime, now or in the future,use it to imprison those who believe in American principals, but I also feel almost as though it coukd be being used as a psy-op to train people to just stop voicing opinions out of exasperation that doing so will never accomplish anything, and so we might as well be mute. It's already working, as I'm personally sick of seeing half of the home page plastered with threads about the newest useless petition. I've grown to the point of "who cares?" almost as fast as I did with the Manti Teo nonsense. People should fo us their efforts on something useful, instead of the recycle bin (aka the White House petition site.)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
All of the The President, senators and congressmen should be charged with violation of their oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States.

The People have the right to procure attorney's and file criminal charges against all of them. The Problem is geting the DOJ to do its job.

Time for the People to take back their country.

Don't file petitions files criminal and civil law suits against them all. they are not immune to not up holding their Oath of office.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Treason?

The Constitution doesn't have any mention of Muskets or AR-15 Bushmasters. Read it again. Congress won't stop people from forming militias to fight off indians, brigands and British troops - if you wanted to read some context into the document.

Banning a particular type of weapon, or maybe blue painted guns -- is absolutely under the purview of an elected official and the only thing you can do is elect a representative who votes on it.

Her oath to the Constitution doesn't mean she can't have policies. And I say this as NOT a supporter of Pelosi because she's a war profiteering Republican.

You get your chance to elect representatives and they either make you happy or they don't with their votes. Pelosi isn't abusing the political process such that an impeachment is warranted. Nor is she helping the "enemies of the United States or condoning sedition" which would be treason. We've got a few dozen Republicans openly calling for secession -- THAT is treason.

The Logic and understanding of rules from some people around here is way off target. If I were her, I'd opt for a Firing Squad as it's likely none of these treason advocates could ever aim.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Like the point you're making (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), most of us have said things in support of the Constitution, in support of freedom, in support of the US over the UN, or a future theoretical global dictstorship. That's more than enough already, but I'm not personally of the "where do I sign up?" mindset when it comes to theoretical "concentration camps" for "patriots." especially when these petitions will accomplish absolutely nothing. 300 million Americans could sign a petition to ban the federal reserve, or to put a 1000% tarriff on all imported goods while doing away with income and property taxes. The most we could expect from either is, "we've read the text of the petition, and this isn't going to work. Thanks for the idea, but its not going to happen."


That about sums it up. I'm normally natural with putting my ideas to words but this one has been a bit of a boggle for some reason. Indeed though...basically?

Fight the battles where we can make a difference and accomplish something.

Support the battles we may not see as much in but others do with like minded purpose and...

Have the discretion to know which ones represent a potential pit of loss, cost and heartache for absolutely nothing gained.

It's this 'fight everything, everywhere on every point' that I think it craaazy. If folks are fighting in all directions then those they oppose, politically or otherwise, have already won. They aren't likewise crippled by a complete lack of focus in responding to the group making the trouble...and yeah, signing up for the special attention sure is what this looks like to me. Volunteering in the worst way.





top topics
 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join