The GoP?

[Patine]

Treason against the United States “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
US Const., Art. I.

That law and it's definition is self-serving to elected officials, as is the impeachment non-justice and non-due process system they enjoy, which spits in the face of the concept of justice and the motto, "and justice for all," and is disgustingly inappropriate for the leadership of a republic. Both should be redefined to have full legal and constitutional accountability for ALL elected officials for ALL actions they perform while in office.

 

[Zkribbler]

Les Etats Unis ne sont pas la France.

 

[Patine]

Les Etats Unis ne sont pas la France.

Treason, by the definition of the word, is "to deliberately and actively work against and sabotage one's nation or the citizen's thereof, either for personal profit, to aid an enemy power or organization, or out of malice, spite, or national loathing." Nations whose definitions deviate sharply from this are because of self-serving and unaccountable governments, either wanting to restrict it to the point where elected leaders are highly unlikely to fall under their definition (like the United States), or expanded upon greatly and to more arbitrary levels, to silence peaceful political opposition, press, and criticism (many Third World dictatorships). Both changes in breadth of definition should be a priority of the PEOPLE, for the purpose of justice and governmental accountability, and to keep elected officials reminded of one their most important titles, but one they often forget to like to obfuscate or brush under the carpet - PUBLIC SERVANT - to demand a change of to the proper norm, and to keep it enforced.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Treason, by the definition of the word, is "to deliberately and actively work against and sabotage one's nation or the citizen's thereof, either for personal profit, to aid an enemy power or organization, or out of malice, spite, or national loathing." Nations whose definitions deviate sharply from this are because of self-serving and unaccountable governments, either wanting to restrict it to the point where elected leaders are highly unlikely to fall under their definition (like the United States), or expanded upon greatly and to more arbitrary levels, to silence peaceful political opposition, press, and criticism (many Third World dictatorships). Both changes in breadth of definition should be a priority of the PEOPLE, for the purpose of justice and governmental accountability, and to keep elected officials reminded of one their most important titles, but one they often forget to like to obfuscate or brush under the carpet - PUBLIC SERVANT - to demand a change of to the proper norm, and to keep it enforced.

The US constitution defines treason for this situation. Your definition doesn't matter. If you don't like the definition in use, blame the Founding Fathers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm referring to willful abdication of duties of office (and yes, Democrats do it too - they weren't meant to be excluded by omission in a grand sense) in ending all productive work of governance and keeping the infrastructure of the nation funded and workable, or at least sincerely trying, for the purpose of making unproductive, petty, and often, unpopular or purely partisan on an ideological level, points.

There's a whole lot of laws governing this sort of behavior. Expanding "treason" into a one size fits all charge seems counterproductive.

 

[Patine]

[QUOTE="Birdjaguar, post: 15557643, member: 8368"If you don't like the definition in use, blame the Founding Fathers.[/QUOTE]

That's a BIG problem with the U.S. Constitution - is the Heraclean labour in amending it, even if absolutely necessary. When it was ratified in 1789, it was a stellar document across the globe - a masterwork of statecraft, law-making, nation-building, forward-thinking governance, and balancing law and order with the rights and freedom if the people. Now, it's horribly lagged behind many (not all, but many) other First World Constitutions, and even a few Third World ones, because it's so immensely difficult to amend to adapt to changing circumstances and the world moving forward, and it's far easier for Americans to rest on their laurels and convince themselves, delusionally, that their Constitution is still the greatest in the world, and always will be, and there's no hurry to even attempt any serious amendments.

 

[Estebonrober]

Please give some examples. The patriot act + war on terror was more than 10 years ago and was egregious, with damage lasting until today. What would fly now that wouldn't in 2004?

Calling half the population enemies of the country to start with, that's when I gave up trying to at least being supportive of the GoP in the interest of the nation. You all are slow walking to civil war.

Openly defending lawlessness.
Openly embracing science denial in interests of making money.
Calling the fifth estate the enemy of the people even though it runs its own propaganda machine that is insanely effective.
Actively removing voting rights from citizens across the nation.
Villianizing whole swaths of people who have immigrated here legally and illegally, even though they support the corporations who bring both in.
Having state reps and senators openly threatening civilians routinely.
Hugging white nationalists.

Admittedly I might be naive and they just didn't have the power to move on some of these but, it seems different.

Btw Clinton was basically a republican even at the time. He barely pushed for universal healthcare which had been a thing for 30 years already at that point for the left. So the dems had lurched right wing with that administration. Now they are closer to where they were in the 70s, pre Reagan basically.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of your post actually.

 

[Birdjaguar]

[QUOTE="Birdjaguar, post: 15557643, member: 8368"If you don't like the definition in use, blame the Founding Fathers.

That's a BIG problem with the U.S. Constitution - is the Heraclean labour in amending it, even if absolutely necessary. When it was ratified in 1789, it was a stellar document across the globe - a masterwork of statecraft, law-making, nation-building, forward-thinking governance, and balancing law and order with the rights and freedom if the people. Now, it's horribly lagged behind many (not all, but many) other First World Constitutions, and even a few Third World ones, because it's so immensely difficult to amend to adapt to changing circumstances and the world moving forward, and it's far easier for Americans to rest on their laurels and convince themselves, delusionally, that their Constitution is still the greatest in the world, and always will be, and there's no hurry to even attempt any serious amendments.[/QUOTE]That may be true, but it is the one we have. Changing it is slow and difficult.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Calling half the population enemies of the country to start with, that's when I gave up trying to at least being supportive of the GoP in the interest of the nation. You all are slow walking to civil war.

Trump tweeted over the weekend that if he is removed from office there will be a civil war.

 

[Estebonrober]

Trump tweeted over the weekend that if he is removed from office there will be a civil war.

Yea well their circle have been preaching that since he won, GoP is the party of lawlessness and kleptocracy. Honestly the dems should just blast that 24/7. GoP = lawlessness/kleptocracy. The only problem is the dems are just the light version of the GoP currently.

 

[Patine]

That's a BIG problem with the U.S. Constitution - is the Heraclean labour in amending it, even if absolutely necessary. When it was ratified in 1789, it was a stellar document across the globe - a masterwork of statecraft, law-making, nation-building, forward-thinking governance, and balancing law and order with the rights and freedom if the people. Now, it's horribly lagged behind many (not all, but many) other First World Constitutions, and even a few Third World ones, because it's so immensely difficult to amend to adapt to changing circumstances and the world moving forward, and it's far easier for Americans to rest on their laurels and convince themselves, delusionally, that their Constitution is still the greatest in the world, and always will be, and there's no hurry to even attempt any serious amendments.

That may be true, but it is the one we have. Changing it is slow and difficult.[/QUOTE]

You could always write a new one. The Founding Fathers aren't religious prophets of old whose words are eternal, perpetual, and not up for revision or replacement by younger generations - despite that strangely being the seeming mentality. Many other nations, and more than half of U.S. States themselves, have had multiple entire Constitutions in their histories. The U.S. won't instantly collapse into anarchy and chaos if such a thing is done - despite the rantings of certain Constitutional Originalists and Libertarians.

 

[Zardnaar]

That may be true, but it is the one we have. Changing it is slow and difficult.

You could always write a new one. The Founding Fathers aren't religious prophets of old whose words are eternal, perpetual, and not up for revision or replacement by younger generations - despite that strangely being the seeming mentality. Many other nations, and more than half of U.S. States themselves, have had multiple entire Constitutions in their histories. The U.S. won't instantly collapse into anarchy and chaos if such a thing is done - despite the rantings of certain Constitutional Originalists and Libertarians.[/QUOTE]

Can't for the same reasons amending the current one is functionally impossible.

 

[Patine]

You could always write a new one. The Founding Fathers aren't religious prophets of old whose words are eternal, perpetual, and not up for revision or replacement by younger generations - despite that strangely being the seeming mentality. Many other nations, and more than half of U.S. States themselves, have had multiple entire Constitutions in their histories. The U.S. won't instantly collapse into anarchy and chaos if such a thing is done - despite the rantings of certain Constitutional Originalists and Libertarians.

Can't for the same reasons amending the current one is functionally impossible.[/QUOTE]

How is that enforceable if the government and people of a given day and age in the U.S. were to decide to go forth with it? Are the Founding Fathers going to rise from the dead and levy wrath and destruction upon the insolent nation?

 

[Zardnaar]

Can't for the same reasons amending the current one is functionally impossible.

How is that enforceable if the government and people of a given day and age in the U.S. were to decide to go forth with it? Are the Founding Fathers going to rise from the dead and levy wrath and destruction upon the insolent nation?[/QUOTE]

They could but in that hypothetical they could easily amend the current one.

 

[Patine]

How is that enforceable if the government and people of a given day and age in the U.S. were to decide to go forth with it? Are the Founding Fathers going to rise from the dead and levy wrath and destruction upon the insolent nation?

They could but in that hypothetical they could easily amend the current one.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they could. And only bicentennial phantoms are TRULY in the way, in truth. And maybe they should make some amendments. As I said, their Constitution is lagging behind a lot of other nations, despite it's stellar and novel debut in 1789.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Patine I'm not sure who said what above; the quoting is pretty messed up. In any case, if we had a constitutional convention, then the entire existing document would be open for revision as would many of the laws and court decisions based on that document. Given the terrible political climate we have today, I do not think we could get a document out of it. If we cannot resolve a single issue like gun rights on its own, how could we possibly come to an agreement on a dozen of similarly divisive issues all at the same time? The time to rewrite the constitution is when there is greater consensus among the citizens on what direction to go. State ratification would follow the convention. I wonder if there are any rules on who gets to be part of the process. Certainly no one over 70 should be.

 

[Patine]

@Patine I'm not sure who said what above; the quoting is pretty messed up. In any case, if we had a constitutional convention, then the entire existing document would be open for revision as would many of the laws and court decisions based on that document. Given the terrible political climate we have today, I do not think we could get a document out of it. If we cannot resolve a single issue like gun rights on its own, how could we possibly come to an agreement on a dozen of similarly divisive issues all at the same time? The time to rewrite the constitution is when there is greater consensus among the citizens on what direction to go. State ratification would follow the convention. I wonder if there are any rules on who gets to be part of the process. Certainly no one over 70 should be.

Citizen participation should be VERY important if a new Convention were held. As it is, the amendment process requires NO binding consultation, referendum, or participation by common citizens - it's entirely up to the Federal and State lawmakers, and doesn't even require an election to go by before it comes into effect. This is a high travesty. In fact, though some States, such as Wisconsin, California, and Washington have adopted such a system of governance at the State level, the U.S. Federal Government is unbeholden to, and often hostile to, the idea of participatory democracy and citizen initiative outside the scheduled electoral cycle. Again, this is a travesty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Calling half the population enemies of the country to start with, that's when I gave up trying to at least being supportive of the GoP in the interest of the nation. You all are slow walking to civil war.

It's true that both parties do this now. I don't like seeing it, even if I'm not surprised.

Openly defending lawlessness.
Openly embracing science denial in interests of making money.
Calling the fifth estate the enemy of the people even though it runs its own propaganda machine that is insanely effective.
Actively removing voting rights from citizens across the nation.
Villianizing whole swaths of people who have immigrated here legally and illegally, even though they support the corporations who bring both in.
Having state reps and senators openly threatening civilians routinely.
Hugging white nationalists.

When I'm asking for examples, I mean specifics. "Openly defending lawlessness" must have some specific event attached to the claim for example, and referencing that event would be more useful for comparing notes.

Some of these claims are highly suspect, too. Let's look at some less dubious ones:

• "Embracing science denial to make money" has such a long history in US leadership that you'd need to go back more than just a few decades to find administrations that didn't do it. How soon we forget about stuff like big tobacco!
• "Villianizing whole swaths of people who have immigrated here legally and illegally" --> has happened in some capacity since WW2 at minimum. Only significant difference is that it wasn't always a hot button political issue drawing attention to it.
• The "fifth estate" is too young to have been called much of anything 20 years ago.

You could always write a new one. The Founding Fathers aren't religious prophets of old whose words are eternal, perpetual, and not up for revision or replacement by younger generations - despite that strangely being the seeming mentality. Many other nations, and more than half of U.S. States themselves, have had multiple entire Constitutions in their histories. The U.S. won't instantly collapse into anarchy and chaos if such a thing is done - despite the rantings of certain Constitutional Originalists and Libertarians.

It's a pandora's box of legal precedence though. If you make it easy to rewrite you have a constant threat of whoever is in charge at the time rewriting it to suit their needs. Rather than an instant collapse into anarchy, the greater risk is a sufficient lockdown of rights/ability to change leadership such that USA isn't a functional republic any longer.

Also, since it's established law of the land, casting it aside carries some nasty implications. Not the least of which is people thinking "well if X can cast aside constraining laws and make new ones that are better for them, why can't we?". Usually the only answer to that question is force.

 

[uppi]

Also, since it's established law of the land, casting it aside carries some nasty implications. Not the least of which is people thinking "well if X can cast aside constraining laws and make new ones that are better for them, why can't we?". Usually the only answer to that question is force.

No. In democratic states, the answer is that X have the support of a large majority of the people for making those new laws. I get that Americans have neglected constitution rewriting far too long and it would be difficult to pick it up again. But that is not going to get better. Either you start thinking about how to get a constitution that is up to modern standards at some point, or you are stuck with an ancient and outdated constitution forever.

 

[Traitorfish]

Contrasted to the left, who often decide to just sit out an election to send a message to the DNC for nominating a candidate who only met 90 out of 100 of their personal metrics, thereby handing the race to the literal worst.

Does this actually happen? My experience is that most of the people who would care enough to make this gesture will suck it up if a race really could go either way. Certainly these people exist, but I have to believe that for every one that does, another nine are invented by the leadership to excuse their own chronic inability to mobilise their constituencies.