Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Daswig,
1: "Aid and Comfort" in the then-current parlance meant -physical- things, such as food, munitions, horses, etc. The modern equivalent would be my selling ammunition to Germany, like A. B. Brown ( Prescott Bush's company ) did up until 1943 when it was shut down under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Check editions 1-4 of Blacks Law Dictionary.
|
Sorry, I just have Black's 6th edition, which states "Aid and comfort. Help, support, assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element of the crime of treason (Constitution of the United States, Art. III, § 3), the giving of "aid and comfort" to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be sucessful and actually render assistance. An act which intentionally strengthens or tends to strengthen enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies. Any intentional act furthering hostile designs of enemies of the United States. United States v. Haupt, D.C. Ill., 47 F.Supp.836, 839."
Quote:
|
2: Criticism and Libel/Slander are not the same thing, legally, semantically, or otherwise.
|
It depends. If your criticism crosses the line into libel or slander, then such criticism is not protected by the First Amendment, yes?
Quote:
|
3: Any trial for Treason, like any other trial of a Civillian, must be carried out in a Civillian court, by a jury of peers, in the open in order to be Constitutional. You know this as well as I do; don't be disingenious.
|
Really? So the actions of a civilian contractor on a federal military reservation is only culpable under the civil law, and not the UCMJ??? Cite, please. Also, please notice that Art. III § 3 states "open court"...not "open civilian court". I'd also suggest you read Art. III §1, and realize that Courts Martial are indeed promulgated by Congress as an inferior court under that section, and that they have just as much Constitutionally based authority as the Federal Circuit courts have. Indeed, trials under the UCMJ are generally conducted in front of a jury, so "that dog don't hunt", either.
Quote:
|
4: My final comment on this thread: you seem to be one of those people who will support whatever the Gov't does, no matter how unConstitutional it might be: the trial and imprisonment of E. Debs is a good example of this. I'm curious as to how you got this way, being that you're an MG owner; or are you one of those gunowners who will turn in his guns and go play AirSoft if "the order" ever comes down? If so, you're nothing but a blowhard hobbyist with expensive toys. If not, then you are a Grade-A Hypocrite who supports Constitutional infringements "For thee, not me;" the kind of gunowner who will take any amount of reaming so long as a Republican is responsible. Either you support the whole Constitution, or nothing of it; you don't get to pick and choose which bits are conveniant.
|
Nope, I just have actually studied the Constitution and the law, and don't get my constitutional talking points from JPFO's "Gran'pa Jack" comic books et al. I have a reality-based understanding of the Constitution. You can insult me all you want, but the fact remains that I've 'walked the walk", not just "talked the talk." The term "wannabe" is not one that is generally applied to me.