I told a buddy about my last post and he asked me what the legal definition of treason and sedition are. Well, to be honest, what I knew was limited to the U.S. Constitution and dictionary definitions. After reading the comments of the gonadally-challenged Dimocratic leadership, I was ready to join the firing squad. This is an emotional response to people who hate this Country or whose words can be detrimental to our troops. I'd still like to see Dean or Kerry in a dark alley.
The Dimocratic party leadership is the only good thing happening for the GOP, but I don't give a damn about the GOP. I care only about the men and women on the ground. We are there (Iraq), we
must stay till the
"War on Radical Islam" is over, and anything that emboldens the enemy, in any way, should not be tolerated. Can you imagine the "pump" our enemies got upon reading Howard Dean's remarks? F**KING BALL-LESS PRICK!!
This male (not man) should be heckled and harassed by hundreds of thousands of citizens, his every waking moment, until he hole's himself up, only to come out after the conclusion of war. But I digress. Emotions should be treated with the utmost disdain with regard to the making, enforcing, and judging the Law.
What is treason? How does one get convicted of treason? What does the Court say about Third Article of the Constitution?
Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution says,
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.The last paragraph is straightforward. It means that the descendants of traitors cannot be punished for the crimes of their forefathers. As well, while Congress can confiscate the property of traitors, that property must be
inheritable upon the traitor's death.
The first paragraph is the "money" paragraph. It has been argued several time's in our Nation's history. In
Ex parte Bollman, the SCOTUS determined that treason is essentially a "military"
offense and that no amount of anti-government speech can qualify as treason, although giving away military secrets can. I guess according to this view, Dean cannot be convicted. I'll bet there are some folks in the Clinton Administration who could...like those responsible for giving military secrets to China and North Korea. The Dim's are lucky that Starr focused on corruption and nepotism rather than National Security.
During the Civil War, Article Three was obviously argued more than a couple of times. The most interesting case was one against a former Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham(Ohio) who had been tried, and convicted (though not a death penalty), before a military tribunal for a speech he gave in Mount Vernon, OH on May 1, 1963. In
Ex parte Vallandigham, the SCOTUS said that since the Constitution says nothing about the SCOTUS having authority over extra-legal tribunals (military tribunal), that the decision of said tribunal will stand.
Now what did Congressman Vallandigham say? Boy howdy! It's a doozy! He said,
"that the present war was a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war, one not waged for the preservation of the Union, but for the purpose of crushing out liberty and to erect a despotism; a war for the freedom of the blacks and the enslavement of the whites; and that if the administration had not wished otherwise, that the war could have been honorably terminated long ago; that peace might have been honorably made by listening to the proposed intermediation of France; that propositions, by which the Southern States could be won back, and the South guaranteed their rights under the Constitution, had been rejected the day before the late battle of Fredericksburg by Lincoln and his minions, meaning the President of the United States, and those under him in authority. Also charging that the Government of the United States was about to appoint military marshals in every district to restrain the people of their liberties, and to deprive them of their rights and privileges, characterizing General Order No. 38, from headquarters of the Department of the Ohio, as a base usurpation of arbitrary authority, inviting his hearers to resist the same, by saying, the sooner the people inform the minions of usurped power that they will not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, the better; and adding, that he was at all times and upon all occasions resolved to do what he could to defeat the attempts now being made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our free government, and asserting that he firmly believed, as he had said six months ago, that the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and oppressive than ever existed before."Boy, the only differences between Vallandigham and the modern Dimocratic party leadership is that the Congressman probably had both of his balls, and his opinions are more thoughtful. I wonder, does this mean that we could put Pelosi down in GITMO and try this America-hater in a military tribunal?
No. The SCOTUS ruled a few years later in
Ex parte Milligan, that, "the suspension of
habeas corpus was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during wartime."
So it looks like we are stuck with these jackasses until we can prove that there is malice (I don't think that the Dim's are smart enough to realize that their words are malicious), or the Court changes the definition of "aid and comfort".
What about sedition? The first instance of sedition in Law goes all the way back to 1798 to the Alien and Sedition Acts. From Wikipedia, "Under the Sedition Act, anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical the president or Congress. (It was notable that the Act did not prohibit criticism of the Vice-president. Jefferson held the office of Vice-president at the time the Act was passed.) While it appears harsh to current Americans, the act was actually much more lenient that the traditional British law of seditious libel. For instance:
1)The act required the defamatory words to be false, and it permitted the defendant to plead truth as a defense, unlike traditional seditious libel law, in which truth actually made the offense greater ("The greater the truth, the greater the libel."). In other words, as long as someone uttered or published the truth, he could not be convicted under the Sedition Act.
2)The act required the defendant to know of the defamatory words' falsity. In other words, someone who uttered a falsehood believing it to be the truth could not be convicted.
3)The act permitted the use of a jury to determine both the facts and the law in the case, unlike traditional seditious libel.
Despite these modifications, however, Jeffersonians denounced the Sedition Act as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which granted the right of free speech. Although the Federalists hoped the Act would muffle the opposition, Democratic-Republicans still "wrote, printed, uttered and published" their criticisms of the Federalists. Indeed they strongly criticised the act itself, and used it as an election issue. The act expired when the term of President Adams ended.
So I guess it does't matter what dumbass thing these limp-wristed pussies say, we just have to view them like we might a lunatic who masturbates in the public square; and inform our soldiers that these yellow cowards represent a minority party that will do anything to assure that status.
