The Declaration of Independence is one of the organic laws of our nation and it says, quote:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
How can they then write in the Constitution that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them..."? One of our founding principles is suddenly negated in a section of our founding compact and the inconsistancy is mindboggling. I do not know how to get around that one.
But and after the first definition you seem to totally dismiss the remaining offenses for which the charge of treason can be laid.
"...or in adhering to their Enemies..."
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition: Enemy - “1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another;”
Has Obama been inflicting injury upon the people of the United States? I guess that would depend on your perspective, but I'm hopeful that by highlighting this one action you would agree that his drone kills on the Al-alaki family without due process would constitute 'inflicting injury'. Does the unconstitutionality of his action need elaborating, too?
United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15.254, meaning of: Adhering - Joining, leagued with, cleaving to; as, “adhering to the enemies of the United States.” Rebels, being citizens, are not “enemies,” within the meaning of the constitution; hence a conviction for treason, in promoting a rebellion, cannot be sustained under that branch of the constitutional definition which speaks of “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
Clearly 'rebels' can't be 'enemies' nor be charged with 'adhering'.
Definition: Rebel - Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 3,
"The name of rebels is given to all subjects who unjustly take up arms against the ruler of the society, [or the lawful and constitutional government,] whether their view be to deprive him of the supreme authority or to resist his lawful commands In some particular instance, and to impose conditions on him."
Since Obama is the 'ruler of the society' he can't also be a 'rebel' in this instance. But he can be the 'enemy'. And any person who 'joins, or is in league with' an 'enemy' can be charged with treason.
Now lets look at 'aid and comfort'.
Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 62, 24 L. Ed. 992; U. S. v. Greathouse, 4 Sawy. 472, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254.
"Help; support; assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element in the crime of treason, 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 successful and actually render assistance."
It looks like someone at the Supreme Court was 'assisting' the 'enemy' by deleting cases against the 'enemy' from the docket.
TREASON! You may like to read the following, too:
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: