Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moosenose
But that is NOT the standard that would be used in trying somebody for violating Article 3 § 3 of the US Constitution. The standard would be "do the statements qualify as "adhering to the enemy"", that is, providing them with moral support.
|
Every day I see more examples of the things RB talks about in terms of how some conservatives talk. A little shift here, a little nudge there. Or a wholesale ignoring of a point or distraction.
It's interesting how the snippet from the Constitution becomes "moral support" in the post of yours I quote here.
Also interesting if you look at the Constitution again:
Quote:
|
Clause 1: 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.
|
We could certainly debate what "adhere" means in this context. And look at what Raider said. Respecting the Iraqis, which Raider does, is a distant relative to "moral support", which is a distanct relative to "adhere".
Oh yeah, then there is that last line from the Constitution. The one about "overt act". Is posting an opinion of respect an overt act to you?
I'd love to see Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and any other judges you would care to choose tear that apart.
But I, too, suspect you really know that.