• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is voting against an amendment considers a treasonous act?

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Not an easy answer, but one that needs to be asked. If a State Senator or Assembly Representative voted against all or a part of the constitution they have sworn to support would that be an act of treason? By allowing our representation to erode our second amendment rights (to infringe) by voting various laws, bans and other restrictions did they in fact violate their sworn duty? The immediate response I have is yes they did, that by voting in these restrictions they impacted the second amendment and have infringed on our right to keep and bear arms. However to find some cite, documentation or even a straight definition of treason has proven to be more difficult than one would have thought.

So I put it to the many learned people on this site, could it be shown that Senators and Representatives did in fact commit treason by voting in (regardless of the bill's author) restrictions or bans on our second amendment rights?
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
Not an easy answer, but one that needs to be asked. If a State Senator or Assembly Representative voted against all or a part of the constitution they have sworn to support would that be an act of treason? By allowing our representation to erode our second amendment rights (to infringe) by voting various laws, bans and other restrictions did they in fact violate their sworn duty? The immediate response I have is yes they did, that by voting in these restrictions they impacted the second amendment and have infringed on our right to keep and bear arms. However to find some cite, documentation or even a straight definition of treason has proven to be more difficult than one would have thought.

So I put it to the many learned people on this site, could it be shown that Senators and Representatives did in fact commit treason by voting in (regardless of the bill's author) restrictions or bans on our second amendment rights?

Since every Constitution incorporates a mechanism to change it, utilizing that mechanism can not be considered treasonous.

Voting too frequently for Unconstitutional laws (not Amendments) may be different, but you'd have to have some pretty damning record to even think about pressing the issue. So I rather doubt it.

Disclaimer: IINAL
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Since every Constitution incorporates a mechanism to change it, utilizing that mechanism can not be considered treasonous.

Voting too frequently for Unconstitutional laws (not Amendments) may be different, but you'd have to have some pretty damning record to even think about pressing the issue. So I rather doubt it.

Disclaimer: IINAL

The constitution has built in a way to AMEND (meaning to add) it, not negate it. The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If an elected official (who takes a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution) knowingly creates or condone a law that restricts that right why isn't that considered a treasonous act? The fact is that person took an oath to uphold, protect and support the constitution. By creating or voting for any law that bypasses, restricts or changes that constitutional amendment they have broken their oath. 10 years ago it would be unthought of to sue someone for many of the things we see as common now. We as a people assume that those in power know what they are able to legally do, but as we have found that is not always the case. Unless they are challenged, who will stop them?
 
Last edited:

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
I have always said (more so now) that if it were back in the day, 90% of all elected officials,both state and fed would be charged with treason. Look at Chicago polititions, California , Mass. You get the picture. These people dont like the constitution, to them it is an obsticle. But they MUST lie to get into office, then they can stiff arm their unconstitutional laws on us "little people" because they know better. And wouldnt you know it,the sheep and uninformed voters just bleat on thinking that these asshats are really smarter than the rest of us. These people are one of the reasons we have the 2 A.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Swearing in:



“ I,___ ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”




Treason:


"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."


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3

You must establish what 'enemy' is being aided and comforted. I wonder, who determines who is the enemy, and who is not the enemy?

Voting on Bills has no thing remotely to do with a treasonous act as is defined within the Constitution. Well, unless they are voting on a Bill that throws the Constitution out, and say, Sharia Law is voted in as the Supreme Law of the Land. That is treasonous. But voting on Constitutional issues in order to broaden 'rights', or restrict 'rights' is not treasonous.

Actually, now that I think about it, if SCOTUS found that Sharia Law being imposed across the Nation is Constitutional, then it is Constitutional.


The issue with the notion of "infringement of rights" is that; first, one must establish what is, and is not a 'right'; second, what constitutes an infringement.

Second Amendment:

"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."

So, we have a 'right' here that has been affirmed in the Constitution which is the 'right' to "keep and bear Arms". And that the 'right' shall not be infringed. Now, to 'not infringe' did they mean to not restrict in any way, or to not completely deny? There are different types of infringement, and degrees, of infringement.

Requiring you to have a background check, is that an infringement?

Having zero requirements, and restrictions, is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

Pick a side.

SCOTUS has found that outright bans are unConstitutional. Did they find that any restriction is unConstitutional...not that I am aware.
 
Last edited:

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
Well since a lot of these votes are being done on the local level I would say for them yes it would be. They don't have the power to change it so they must abide by the constitution. Places like Chicago ,DC and California do not have the right to try to work around it like they have been. Even at the federal level trying to bypass it without proposing an amendment should be considered the same. The is a means to update the constitution and that is the only way rights should be addressed. Signing statements, acts etc are means to bypass and restrict rights. If they don't have the authority to enforce it then they are passing illegal legislation that is against the common citizen.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Well since a lot of these votes are being done on the local level I would say for them yes it would be. They don't have the power to change it so they must abide by the constitution. Places like Chicago ,DC and California do not have the right to try to work around it like they have been. Even at the federal level trying to bypass it without proposing an amendment should be considered the same. The is a means to update the constitution and that is the only way rights should be addressed. Signing statements, acts etc are means to bypass and restrict rights. If they don't have the authority to enforce it then they are passing illegal legislation that is against the common citizen.

Here is the thing, if the law is unConstitutional, it is not unConstitutional until found unConstitutional by SCOTUS. I am stating that prior to a SCOTUS finding it is neither, until there is a SCOTUS finding - anything argued prior to a finding as to the 'Constitutionality' of some '(l)(L)aw' is speculation, period. With regard to whatever law being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional at the state level, well, it might be ruled constitutional as outlined under the state constitution, but the law could actually be Federally unConstitutional.

Very rarely arguments before SCOTUS are broad, the arguments tend to be narrow in scope, as is the finding. The findings in Chicago, and D.C. were not broad in scope, but merely, from what I recall, only affirmed that individuals can purchase, and hold firearms; that firearm ownership in-part is a "[long held tradition]" (Cite ?, I believe it was in the Chicago finding). Whether or not the requirements implemented post-finding are 'infringing' is for another run through SCOTUS. The process is extremely incremental, and time-consuming; as it should be.

Some of the 'restrictions' imposed, say, in Chicago, appear to be overtly against the 'spirit' of the ruling, but none of us know for sure until SCOTUS is presented with the 'restrictions', and the degree of the 'restrictions' are argued, and found to either be unConstitutional, or Constitutional. In the mean-time, that means that the 'restrictions' imposed are neither Constitutional, nor unConstitutional.

This is one of the difficult things about laws, and Laws that are passed is that once they are passed, it can take a very long time to undue them, even if they are ruled unConstitutional. It's sort of like a snake that wraps itself around you, you might be able to get one coil off you, then another, but the snake continuously eases itself back around you. Once a law, or Law is found unConstitutional, what the group in power does is alters the law, or Law, based on the scope of the finding, and implements the law, or Law again. I question this line of attack by individuals arguing before SCOTUS, but SCOTUS seems to want to hear specifically what the argument is for an against, then rules along those lines.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Swearing in:



“ I,___ ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”


The issue with the notion of "infringement of rights" is that; first, one must establish what is, and is not a 'right'; second, what constitutes an infringement.

Second Amendment:

"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."

So, we have a 'right' here that has been affirmed in the Constitution which is the 'right' to "keep and bear Arms". And that the 'right' shall not be infringed. Now, to 'not infringe' did they mean to not restrict in any way, or to not completely deny? There are different types of infringement, and degrees, of infringement.

An infringement is an infringement.

in·fringe

  <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/I01/I0167100" target="_blank">
speaker.gif
/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.


–verb (used without object) 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.





for example, If you are standing on my property at the edge of the property line, and I don't want you there, then you have infringed. It doesnt matter if I have 500 square feet, or 500 square miles of property, if you are on it and I dont want you there, you are infringing on it. An infringement doesnt happen only around the edges, or only in the driveway, at the threshold of the door, in the rooms, or inly in the bed. It is anywhere. All the SCOTUS does, is depending on wether the majority of that .gov agencies members are right or left, is to move the line in or out that can be used to prosecute the infringor, for lack of a better term. If SCOTUS is all right, then the person stepping across the property line is infringing. If SCOTUS is all left, then it isnt an infringement until there is a rape. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, and the only way to get our rights back is to cut the head off of that snake.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
in·fringe (
ibreve.gif
n-fr
ibreve.gif
nj
prime.gif
)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringe

As is defined above, to infringe is to "exceed the limits of," "invalidate."

Now, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

Do you see that the definition that I provided for "infringe" has two types of infringement?

The first type is what I would consider an encroachment in any way...ALL encroachment is an 'infringement'.

The second type "invalidates" the 'thing', in this case, the 'right' outlined as the Second Amendment. There is no encroachment, there is a Second Amendment 'right', then there is no Second Amendment 'right'.

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

This definition seems to have "infringe" function under definition as anything that exceeds the limits of a 'thing', in this case, our Second Amendment 'right' "to keep, and bear Arms." So, by this example, if there is a violation, you could argue 'restrictions' imposed, would be an infringement.

2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Do 'restriction' that might slow the process of acquisition of, but do not prevent the ability to "keep and bear Arms" 'invalidate' the Second Amendment? I would say that it doesn't.

We can sit here, and argue about the 'spirit' of the Constitution, but really, is it necessary. It's enough of an exercise to get to the heart of what the words in the Constitution mean by themselves. The 'spirit' of the Second Amendment is deeper than where we already stand. And if we do not agree that there are two types of "infringement" then there is no point to going deeper.

Do I believe that there are unnecessary 'restrictions', hell yes I do. Do I think that the 'restrictions' are unConstitutional, even though I believe they are unnecessary, no. Unless it is an outright ban, or restricted in such a way that your average person is not able to "keep and bear Arms," meaning, it is made unfeasible economically, then there is nothing unConstitutional about it. Well, unless SCOTUS finds that some 'restriction', or degree of 'restriction' is unConstitutional, or Constitutional.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
"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."


So, by definition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have committed treason, because they had Anwar Al-Awlaki INSIDE the Pentagon for a meeting just a few weeks after 9/11. I'm assuming they gave him a place to stay, food, and protection.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/al-qaeda-cleric-awlaki-invited-pentagon-911/story?id=11935006


Sure sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. But since we haven't actually declared "war" on anyone in the "war of terror", perhaps it doesn't technically meet the requirements... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
So, by definition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have committed treason, because they had Anwar Al-Awlaki INSIDE the Pentagon for a meeting just a few weeks after 9/11. I'm assuming they gave him a place to stay, food, and protection.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/al-qaeda-cleric-awlaki-invited-pentagon-911/story?id=11935006


Sure sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. But since we haven't actually declared "war" on anyone in the "war of terror", perhaps it doesn't technically meet the requirements... :rolleyes:

Ah, technicalities. I am sure by "aid and comfort" they meant that a person would, say, Send money to Bin Laden for an attack against the US (probably even more specific than that), or house Bin Laden in their home. Bin Laden would have had bells the size of bowling balls to be smuggled into the US, and housed in the US. One place we would have definitely not been looking for him.

Treason is disclosing the name of a CIA agent...wait, that's just politics at its worse.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The constitution has built in a way to AMEND (meaning to add) it, not negate it. The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If an elected official (who takes a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution) knowingly creates or condone a law that restricts that right why isn't that considered a treasonous act? The fact is that person took an oath to uphold, protect and support the constitution. By creating or voting for any law that bypasses, restricts or changes that constitutional amendment they have broken their oath. 10 years ago it would be unthought of to sue someone for many of the things we see as common now. We as a people assume that those in power know what they are able to legally do, but as we have found that is not always the case. Unless they are challenged, who will stop them?

a·mend [uh-mend]
–verb (used with object)
1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure: Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
2. to change for the better; improve: to amend one's ways.
3. to remove or correct faults in; rectify.

It appears that to "amend" has more meanings than merely to add.
Were it not so, then the Constitution could not be amended by both the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 16, 1919 and later amended by the Twenty-First Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933. The Eighteenth Amendment is the only Amendment ever to be repealed (removed, deleted, subtracted from) the Constitution.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
When whoever decided to draw up the laws that prohibited me from carrying my weapon in my vehicle without a CPL, they and those who voted for that law, and the governor who signed it into law, did so, they became guilty of treason, and deserving of death for a punishment.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
There are two definitions of treason which would point to "yes" for elected officials which violate their oath of office:

"2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery."

The thing about definitions and dictionaries is the fact that they are products of those who write them. Example, the word "gender". This word has nothing to do with sexuality for living beings. It is a masculine and feminine descriptor of nouns in language. However, we see what has become of that word. Getting back to oath violations and treason.

It is patently clear that any official, be they voted or selected into a public office or position, who takes an oath swearing to support and defend the Constitution and then goes about violating it covertly or overtly, is obviously guilty of a violation of this oath and should be removed from that position as soon as possible. If the official holds high office, such as a representative, senator, or president and they take active measures to circumvent the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I would be very much in favor of arresting them and trying them for treason.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[FONT=&quot]treach·er·y[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/ˈtreCHərē/[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Noun: Betrayal of trust; deceptive action or nature[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]trea·son[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/ˈtrēzən/[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Noun[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.[/FONT]

There are a number of ‘things’ that an individual must do in order to commit ‘treason’. They must ‘betray’ their ‘state’ or ‘State’, meaning, seek to undermine, directly. And the reason behind the undermining must be with the intent to give “aid and comfort” to the ‘enemy’.
Not some conspiracy theory that some person is in cahoots with some commie. Let us get real here people! Treason is a specific set of ‘intents’, and ‘acts’ that are direct, and conscious to the individual engaging in its application. The individual must CONSPIRE with the 'enemy'.



All of this 'treason' talk, implications, and accusations are nonsense. "Oath violation" is not 'treason'. Unless you have some Representative that is 'conspiring' with the 'enemy' to undermine the Nation.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
There are politicians conspiring to undermine the nation by making it easier to victimize it's citizens and giving the enemy comfort and aid. ;)
 
Top