Treason Outside the Constitution.

[Jacquerie]

For the purpose of felony offense, treason in America is famously defined in our constitution. No longer may political opponents be brought before the equivalent of King’s judges and face charges for real or imagined insults or crimes. No, constitutional treason consists of making war against the United States or assisting its enemies. Oh, and unless the traitor confesses, two witnesses must observe the treasonous act.

Put aside for a moment the constitutional definition and hurdles to be surmounted in order to obtain a felony conviction. Consider the broad, historic and popular concept of treason, the betrayal of one’s country. Our constitution provides a punishment short of execution.

When a President violates the constitution, he is guilty of a high crime, a treasonous act. He broke his vow and subverted our rights and privileges. He is a loathsome creature unfit to serve. It is self-evident proof the people made a horrible mistake, one that must be corrected, for if left in office it will encourage subsequent Presidents to commit similar crimes.

As opposed to a murderer, whose felony is typically against one person, crimes against the constitution are far worse, for they are assaults against the sovereign, you and me, the millions, the American people. To listen to Obama’s handlers or GOPE explain away his public crimes constitute enormous insults of the intelligence of a once free people. No rationalization, no lawyerly excuses, no minute distinctions of what he can do with his ‘inherent’ executive power can logically explain away his offenses against us all.

Despite the notorious absence of impeachment by the House or trial in the Senate, Obama, like the free murderer at-large, is still guilty of what he has committed, popular treason against the sovereign, the people of these United States.

And we let him get away with it.

[dforest]

Sometimes I think most of us put up with this because it is easier to think that maybe it won’t get too bad while we are alive. We can hang on, find solace in dying before it gets too bad. Therefore pushing this disaster on to those behind us.

Something has to give. Either we succumb and learn to live with this or we fight back and quit depending on politicians and phony compromised elections to save our Republic. I think we all know that most of them have gone to the dark side and they mock and make fun of us. We are “human capital” to them.

I think that is what the progressives are counting on. The kids are being indoctrinated and they will never know and learn about what freedom was.

[Jacquerie]

The Federalist answer was that neither the people nor states would put up with a traitorous President.

Recall the electoral college. States get to determine how their electors are chosen, and IIRC most states used their legislatures to elect, via chosen electors, George Washington.

The Constitution of 1787 wasn't as Federal as the Articles of Confederation, but the states still had the power to run the show.

Only the House of Reps was designed to be out of state legislature influence. If the states were still in the senate, there wouldn't be a chance that presidents would bother to nominate anti-10th Amendment federal judges. Now, it is assumed that every rat appointee will be hostile to the 9th and 10th amendments.

The 17th must go.

[Jacquerie]

Well, I hope you read my link.

If there are any points you wish to dispute, I’d enjoy hearing of them.

[Jim Noble]

For a court to find that Obama has not executed his constitutional duty is adjudication of a high political crime, which is the duty of Congress, not the courts

Obviously, and any judge with half a brain will dismiss this "lawsuit" for lack of jurisdiction in a nanosecond.

The Founders (obviously) anticipated this situation and provided a mechanism to resolve it.

For failure to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, there is a court of first impression. It's called the House of Representatives, and John Boehner is in charge of it.

[Deagle]

Wow, insightful, truthful...and a bit depressing.

[Jim Noble]

I am still wondering just how our Constitution of over a hundred years had finally be circumvented

Not impeaching “Obama” is simply the final act of surrender. We the People of the United States have certain sovereign powers. We delegated some of them to a Congress of the United States in 1788.

Exercising our powers, the ones that we delegated to them, makes the scum who make up the Congress nervous, because in the proper exercise of these powers, they make some people angry or upset. Angry, upset people pose a threat to their continuance in office, a job which confers security and great wealth on any who hold it.

So, beginning with the abdication in 1913 of the Money Power, Congress has slowly been transferring OUR powers which we delegated to them to unelected and therefore invulnerable entities, which we cannot control.

This process is now nearly complete.

[Deagle]

While I understand the difference in the electoral process of Senators, just how would that change things today?

I see no difference if jurisdiction regarding the President’s outlaw actions.

[Deagle]

Not really... Impeaching a President takes both houses and you know that when one party controls a house of the President that impeachment is almost impossible.

Of course that is because politics today means Party instead of people representatives so there is a difference. Things have gone very wrong with local representation these days - both houses of Congress.

[dforest]

I totally loved this country. I felt so lucky and blessed to be born in such a great place.

All you have to do is look at the misery so many people live with in other places. Misery that we have never had to deal with on our soil.

I haven’t lost my love for what America was. I have lost the belief that Americans care enough to save it. If you want do do something the right way, you have to do it yourself. We see what happens when we rely on political answers.

I can’t get interested with party infighting anymore. RINOs, Cons. Whatever. If people stay home in a huff in November, nothing will change and if they don’t, nothing will change.

That is true malaise.

That is why Reagan inspired me. He lifted the spirits of a country that really need it at the time.

I know I sound negative, but I am really not a negative person. I am just reflecting, most likely, the thoughts of many.

[itsahoot]

Yes, you may be right, but that means that they had much more faith in people then to stop this kind of nonsense.

They had faith in a people that had faith.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

[Cen-Tejas]

........which is WHY some think “parties” should be outlawed....

[JimRed]

I would say not working for just a UniParty but for the money driven lobbies..

The only cure is to take the money out of consideration. Any individual or corporation should be permitted to donate to any candidate or party as they wish- That's FREEDOM. But the donations should NOT be able to buy influence; that's BRIBERY.

Therefore all political donations must be ANONYMOUS. You can't sell influence if you don't know who's buying. Ever wonder why million dollar a year lawyers are so anxious to run for offices that offer them a big pay cut? It sure isn't to serve the public!

Any donor disclosing his identity or any candidate or office holder trying to discover donors' identities should be guilty of a felony. Lobbyists should be held to one standard of proof: How will the legislation you want us to pass benefit the United States of America?

The side benefit is that once office holders can no longer line their own pockets, those whose objective is anything other than serving their country will quickly lose interest. Especially if we enforce term limits along with stopping the corruption.