1 - 10 Next
Perhaps you can do an investigation to learn the answers. Then you can come back armed with actual evidence, rather than just hot air.
"Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights." --Thomas Jefferson
Treason? Really? The way people here throw around the words "traitor" and "treason" because someone has a different political opinion would indicate that they have no understanding of the Constitution or the intent of the Framers. Having no evidence of treason as defined by the Constitution, they believe that someone is guilty of treason because they disagree with his policies, taking us back to the English definition of treason rejected by the Framers. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, treason was well established in English common law; they did not have to set out a definition for it. But under English law, a charge of "treason" had been employed for the most drastic, "lawful" suppression of political opposition or the expression of ideas or beliefs distasteful to those in power. But the Framers did not want this and defined it within the Constitution. Madison wrote that, "As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it...." At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the treason clause was most praised for the reason that it prevented the use of treason trials as an instrument of political faction; and the link here to the omission of any provision similar to the charge of compassing seems clear. Judges have accordingly agreed that the mere expression of beliefs cannot be deemed "treason" within the constitutional definition. However, when someone advocates that anyone is guilty of treason because they disagree with his policies, it takes us back to the English definition of treason which was rejected by the Framers. That is why I say that those who advocate for this have no respect for the Constitution or the intent of the Framers. If you want to uphold the Constitution, then uphold all of it, not just the parts you agree with or your interpretation of it.
So you advocate for the violation of the Constitution (due process, bill of attainder, ex post facto, habeas corpus) and treason (levying war against the United States). Excellent position you have there.
Federal judges do have substantial power, probably much more than an IRS auditor.
Unless they don't pass his budget; passes a repeal of Obamacare, which he will veto and people will continue to dislike it; and passes immigration bills to counter executive orders, which he will also veto, eliminating his excuse for executive action. Obama goes down the drain and the Republican party will be well positioned for 2016.
I suspect that a similar percentage of the general population are not sure when the midterm elections are. It is not an issue of ignorance or incompetence, but rather a matter of lack of interest.
Of course going on her property and putting pictures on her sign would be criminal trespass and criminal mischief, which would result in him going to jail. Possibly one motive for the sign was the hope that he would take the sign down and be arrested.
As I suspected, you have no source and pulled you 100 million number out of the air (or, perhaps, from where the sun doesn't shine). Just a matter of sensational hyperbole.
I am fully aware of that. You have precisely hit upon the point of my post, that it makes no more sense to claim Obama is an illegal alien than to claim that Cruz , or Rubio, Jindahl, etc., is an illegal alien. However, there are those who cannot accept that the people elected him and persist in there illogic.
1 - 10 Next