Oregon Patriots Now Treasonous Dogs!

[D2D]

Davik what part of Article 3, section 3 of the Constitution has been violated?


Treason against the United States, shallconsist 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.


Can you point to the violation?

[gwboolean]

You know DiddleDik, you actually have a point here.  I mean, trying to overthrow the government is technically not treason.  But treason is a reasonable word to use since revolution, or overthrowing the government if you will, is considered by most to be synonymous with treason.  In any case, they are both capital crimes against the United States of America.

[D2D]

Nope!

The founders defined treason in the US Constitution with the intention of preventing people like you expanding its definition to include all who dare speak out against governmental abuse!

[gwboolean]

Komerad I never said that your definition of the word treason was in error.  You are exactly right and under the law treason would not apply to what is occurring with these Patriots in Bend.  However, what those Patriots in Bend are doing is to attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America and that is indeed a capital offence.  Otherwise I was merely pointing out that in most Americans mind attempting to overthrow the government is synonymous with treason even though you are legally correct.

[D2D]

 

However, what those Patriots in Bend are doing is to attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of America and that is indeed a capital offence. 

Quote the statute that mandates the death penalty!

Since when is speaking truth to power in any way illegal?

[Truman62]

Castle Law - ANY Federal Employee can go in and shoot those MF's because they are trespassing on Federal land and stealing federal property!

[Jim]

 
 
Its not legally federal land since they cannot (by law) own land.  This is why they have not gone in. 
They know how this will end if it reaches into the courts and they don't have a judge they've frightened into submission.

[scott_free]

it is hard to believe how gullible and misinformed right wingers are ABOUT EVERYTHING!!  dumbass buttridden believes the Supreme Court has no real power to interpret the Constitution and direct the other two branches of government when it comes to passing or enforcing laws and policies, and somehow chemtrail Jim believes the government cannot own land!!!  Just freakin' amazing!!  and they still believe they should comment on anything with such limited knowledge?  Shouldn't they at least finish Junior High first?

first, those of you who can read this, now can see how wrong buttridden is:

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[D2D]

 

Castle Law - ANY Federal Employee can go in and shoot those MF's because they are trespassing on Federal land and stealing federal property!

Davik says government has the right to shoot and kill trespassers!

Really!

Castle is not federal law!

[scott_free]

Now to debunk airhead Jim's drivel about the Constitution not giving the government the right to own land:

Napolitano: Washington lacks constitutional right to own land in Western states

Judge Andrew Napolitano waded into the rancher Cliven Bundy controversy, arguing that the constitution gives Washington no right to own a large portion of Nevada.
As we heard over and over during the Nevada standoff between federal agents and Cliven Bundy and his gun-bearing supporters, this fight wasn’t about cows or tortoises, it was about land and who controls it. For Bundy, the starting point was clear.

"I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing," Bundy said in an April 10 radio interview.

Even in libertarian circles that is an extreme view, but Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News did lend his weight to the general argument that Washington is in the wrong. Napolitano was talking on Fox’s Hannity when the host pointed out Washington’s extensive holdings in the West.

"Look at the percentage they own in Nevada, 81 percent. Utah, 66 percent. Idaho, 61 percent," Hannity said. "Why does the government own all of this land anyway?"

"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."

We wanted to hear Napolitano’s legal explanation, but he did not get back to us. However, he is not the first to make this claim and we were able to review the legal record to see whether the federal government lacks the constitutional authority as he said.

The short answer is that the Constitution, through the Property Clause, specifically gives the government the power to own land. Over time, the Supreme Court has ruled that not only does the government own the land, but it enjoys broad rights in deciding what happens on that land.

In 2007, the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm that works on behalf of Democrats and Republicans, explored the legal roots of federal land ownership. Its finding was unambiguous and clear.

"The Property Clause gives Congress authority over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’ power to legislate under this Clause as ‘without limitation,’ " the researcher wrote.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank and activist organization in Washington, D.C., says much the same thing on its online guide to the Constitution. It provides the key text from Article IV of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

We asked another legal scholar at Heritage, John Malcolm, if we were misinterpreting anything. Malcolm told us we had it right.

"I’m not aware of anything in the Constitution that would preclude the federal government from owning land in these western states," Malcolm told PunditFact.

[scott_free]

This argument has special relevance for states such as Nevada and Utah that were formed from large swaths of land owned by Washington. By this legal logic, when those states entered the Union, the federal government lost the ability to own land there.

But according to the Congressional Research Service, that interpretation is "contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution." On top of that, under the law that created Nevada in 1864, the state specifically agreed to give up any claim to "unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."

For you history buffs, the United States acquired the land (see map) that became Nevada, California, Utah, plus chunks of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona from Mexico in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War. Mexico also ditched any claim to Texas. In exchange, the United States paid Mexico $15 million. Napolitano said the land should be returned but given this chain of title, it is hard to see who would have any claim. We doubt he is thinking of Mexico.

That Congressional Research Service report along with Heritage Foundation’s guide note that since 1845, the Supreme Court has issued many decisions that strengthen the government’s hand. An 1897 case said Congress could block someone from putting up fences on private land if it blocked access to public land. In 1911, the court affirmed the use of large tracts of land as national forests, held in the public interest.

John Leshy is a professor of real property law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Leshy served in the Interior Department in the Carter and Clinton administrations and was part of the transition team when President Barack Obama first took office.

"Napolitano’s statement is absurd," Leshy said. "The constitutional basis of federal land ownership is not subject to any serious debate among scholars, and hasn’t been for a very long time."

Our ruling

Napolitano said the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land in many Western states. The underlying legal argument rests on a tenuous interpretation of constitutional language and the rejection of about 125 years of Supreme Court decisions. The legal scholars we reached, regardless of any political leanings they might have, agreed that the Constitution clearly grants Washington the power to own land and that arguments to the contrary are baseless.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/

[wmdn_bs]

At the very least they are seditionists.

Sedition:

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N),
Sept. 13, 1994
, 108 Stat. 2148.)




Twenty years in jail and a bankrupting fine should cool their heels.