Domestic enemy of the Constitution?

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to forget that it is inherently unlawful to alter our FORM of government even if they conform to the usual conventions of passing legislation. To amend the statutes (US Code) using Article 1 is not the same thing as passing an Amendment using Article 5. An article 1 bill cannot amend the Constitution and any bill that pretends to do so is unlawful. Even altering our form of government itself from a constitutional Republic is treason and a violation of the Oaths that these officials take.

I normally dont post here, tbh, because so much of what I've seen posted here in the past shows a glaring and fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, how its processes are supposed to work, and what is lawful under it.

This nation is sunk if more people don't get a crash course in the Constitution and get a proper grasp. If people don't do that, then how can they effectively resist the depredations upon the Constitution by our domestic enemies? And just so I am clear: every politician that knowingly violates their Oath of office to subvert the Constitution are traitors. EACH AND EVERY ONE.

Ya know, I can't help but point out, that after admonishing folks about not knowing the constitution, you incorrectly (at least constitutionally) label politicians that violate their oath of office as traitors. Nevertheless, passing/cosponsoring/creating a bill that violates the Constitution, doesn't make one a domestic enemy. If you believe so, then should the FBI be outside the USSC waiting to arrest anyone who the Court has decided to have violated the constitution?

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

Ya know, I can't help but point out, that after admonishing folks about not knowing the constitution, you incorrectly (at least constitutionally) label politicians that violate their oath of office as traitors. Nevertheless, passing/cosponsoring/creating a bill that violates the Constitution, doesn't make one a domestic enemy. If you believe so, then should the FBI be outside the USSC waiting to arrest anyone who the Court has decided to have violated the constitution?

It's not incorrect to label politicians who openly and maliciously rail against our form of government in word and deed as traitors. If a legislator who is secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) a communist, passes a bill that undermines our form of government and the liberties it is created to protect, a bill that was intended to aid & abet communist foreign enemies of America in the process then how is that not treason?? And you know we have actual socialists/communists, islamists, and a few others who are doing exactly this right now. Yes it DOES make them a domestic enemy but I can't help anyone who is too obstinate or obtuse to see what ought to be self-evident. Yes I would expect that such domestic enemies should be held accountable for their actions! They SHOULD be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced!!

But I think I can safely say that you know as well as I do that 1) Americans don't have the stones to do what needs to be done, and 2) We have a dual-standard justice system: one standard for the elites and one for the rest of us. Everyone is too busy making excuses for varying levels of statist tyranny because they've been brainwashed by the very government that is inexorably taking away their liberty. The government educational system has programmed people to accept their chains willingly.

 

[BugI02]

Jeephammer? Is that you?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's not incorrect to label politicians who openly and maliciously rail against our form of government in word and deed as traitors. If a legislator who is secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) a communist, passes a bill that undermines our form of government and the liberties it is created to protect, a bill that was intended to aid & abet communist foreign enemies of America in the process then how is that not treason?? And you know we have actual socialists/communists, islamists, and a few others who are doing exactly this right now. Yes it DOES make them a domestic enemy but I can't help anyone who is too obstinate or obtuse to see what ought to be self-evident. Yes I would expect that such domestic enemies should be held accountable for their actions! They SHOULD be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced!!

But I think I can safely say that you know as well as I do that 1) Americans don't have the stones to do what needs to be done, and 2) We have a dual-standard justice system: one standard for the elites and one for the rest of us. Everyone is too busy making excuses for varying levels of statist tyranny because they've been brainwashed by the very government that is inexorably taking away their liberty. The government educational system has programmed people to accept their chains willingly.

So based on your own words, is it fair to say that, prior to emancipation, you viewed abolitionists as traitors?

 

[jamil]

Oh wow, I don't even know where to begin.

Probably at the beginning. And then each statement after. But. The likely outcome is not worth the time.

 

[MarkC]

It's not incorrect to label politicians who openly and maliciously rail against our form of government in word and deed as traitors. If a legislator who is secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) a communist, passes a bill that undermines our form of government and the liberties it is created to protect, a bill that was intended to aid & abet communist foreign enemies of America in the process then how is that not treason?? And you know we have actual socialists/communists, islamists, and a few others who are doing exactly this right now. Yes it DOES make them a domestic enemy but I can't help anyone who is too obstinate or obtuse to see what ought to be self-evident. Yes I would expect that such domestic enemies should be held accountable for their actions! They SHOULD be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced!!

But I think I can safely say that you know as well as I do that 1) Americans don't have the stones to do what needs to be done, and 2) We have a dual-standard justice system: one standard for the elites and one for the rest of us. Everyone is too busy making excuses for varying levels of statist tyranny because they've been brainwashed by the very government that is inexorably taking away their liberty. The government educational system has programmed people to accept their chains willingly.

So based on your own words, is it fair to say that, prior to emancipation, you viewed abolitionists as traitors?

Clearly, by his reasoning, anyone who ever agrees with a congressionally enacted and state ratified Constitutional amendment is some kind of criminal?

So, as Kut notes, anyone implementing the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is a traitor?

What about the 14th, requiring the states to observe due process (among other things)?

Is women's suffrage also treason?

AND.... aren't the Bill of Rights all Amendments to the Constitution? Amended in, using the process decried in the posts above, adding to and changing the originally adopted Constitution. TREASON! TREASON! (Or, did I miss something, and the first ten are okay, and subsequent amendments bad?)

 

[jamil]

Clearly, by his reasoning, anyone who ever agrees with a congressionally enacted and state ratified Constitutional amendment is some kind of criminal?

So, as Kut notes, anyone implementing the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is a traitor?

What about the 14th, requiring the states to observe due process (among other things)?

Is women's suffrage also treason?

AND.... aren't the Bill of Rights all Amendments to the Constitution? Amended in, using the process decried in the posts above, adding to and changing the originally adopted Constitution.

As I recall, a once active female member of INGO would say yes.

 

[MarkC]

Probably at the beginning. And then each statement after. But. The likely outcome is not worth the time.

You're so right; but, while you were typing this, I was typing the post, above.

 

[Shootin45super]

Democratic party! nuff said

 

[HoughMade]

....And I don't know about the OP- no clue- but when topics like this come up, I just can't help feeling like some people are just looking for someone to tell them that they can start "voting from the rooftops".....not that they would, mind you, but III%er t-shirt sales will rise nonetheless...seeing as how you don't really have to prove anything to make the claim.

The longer this topic goes on....

Anyhoo, if a person hates the 2nd Amendment, and campaigns to have it repealed using the amendment procedure in the Constitution, that person is not an "enemy" under the oath or a traitor. They are wrong.

 

[JettaKnight]

ROFL!! YEAH!! TALK, TALK, TALK!! (I should know, I once had a passing dalliance with libertarianism but I moved on)

To fascism?

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

To fascism?

Further to the right, yes. fascism, no. But I definitely despise leftists. They're all that is wrong with America today. And BTW, fascists?? they are on the political left, too. Nazi is short for National socialist (or NAtionalsoZIalismus). I'm disappointed that so many who dare to call themselves Americans embrace the tropes of the Left, whether it be international socialism or national socialism.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Further to the right, yes. fascism, no. But I definitely despise leftists. They're all that is wrong with America today. And BTW, fascists?? they are on the political left, too. Nazi is short for National socialist (or NAtionalsoZIalismus). I'm disappointed that so many who dare to call themselves Americans embrace the tropes of the Left, whether it be international socialism or national socialism.

Fascists can be on the political left (though rare), but in the case of the Nazi's, they were on the political right. Pointing out that the Nazis had "socialist" in there name isn't hard proof of anything related to political leanings... well, unless one thinks that the the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is indicative of how freedom-loving a nation it is.

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

Fascists can be on the political left (though rare), but in the case of the Nazi's, they were on the political right. Pointing out that the Nazis had "socialist" in there name isn't hard proof of anything related to political leanings... well, unless one thinks that the the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is indicative of how freedom-loving a nation it is.

The spectrum you're using is the establishment's false dichotomy. All statist and collectivist forms of government are leftist; Total anarchy is the far right. I'm a minarchist hoppean libertarian. Constitutionally limited Republics such as the USA fall within the area that classical political theorists referred to as "the golden mean". Our government is running to the left: more statist, collectivist, and lurching toward totalitarianism.

 

[Expat]

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian


https://mises.org/library/nazism-socialism

 

[jamil]

ROFL!! YEAH!! TALK, TALK, TALK!! (I should know, I once had a passing dalliance with libertarianism but I moved on)

Ya. **** liberty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The spectrum you're using is the establishment's false dichotomy. All statist and collectivist forms of government are leftist; Total anarchy is the far right. I'm a minarchist hoppean libertarian. Constitutionally limited Republics such as the USA fall within the area that classical political theorists referred to as "the golden mean". Our government is running to the left: more statist, collectivist, and lurching toward totalitarianism.

This may be your opinion, but it is incorrect. Political ideology so far as; left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative, depends entirely on the state of the particular government at the time. Right-wing/conservatives, regardless of political ideology, are more focused on maintaining the status quo, and exhibiting a reluctance to change. You can be a die-hard socialist, and still be right-wing/conservative.
After a nation has established a identity, concerning government, those that support it are considered conservatives, those that want to change it, liberals. The former Soviet Union, is a good example of this. Gorbachev was a liberal, Yeltsin more so. The conservative wing of the party attempted to hinder Gorbachev, and literally overthrow Yeltsin. The people doing so weren't liberal, by the Soviet standard, they were right-wing conservatives.
That's very basic political science. You can find volumes and volumes on the subject.

Edit: here, maybe this will explain the notion better. Do you consider the Founding Fathers liberals/left wing or conservative/right wing, compared to the Crown/Tories/Monarchists?

 

[jamil]

I think mises got some stuff right and they got some stuff wrong. What they got right is that Nazism is totalitarian, and that socialism cannot function without a totalitarian government.

What they got wrong is that Nazism is not socialism, per se. Under Nazism, the people did not own the means of production. In socialism, the people ( it's the state) owns and controls the means of production. Under Nazism, Hitler privatized many government services. That would be anathema to socialists. Property ownership was allowed under Nazism. Under socialism property belongs to the people collectively. Hitler suppressed labor unions. The left loves them. Labor unions are bedrock socialist. Profit was allowed under Nazism. To socialists profit is evil; stealing from the people.

I think conservatives tend to reject the idea that Nazism is right wing because they don't want to admit to what the right wing looks like when it goes too far. Also, they get too hung up on the name of the Nazi party. Yes, it has socialism in it's name, but as you can see from their economic policies, they didn't implement economic policies that are left wing or socialist. The name is just a name, much like "social democrats" like to water down what they really want: complete state control of the means of production. It was to appeal to the working class, to get them to vote Nazi. After the Nazis took control, there was little socialist about it.

Really, about the only aspects which Nazism shared with socialism, was that they both were/are collectivists and totalitarian. What totalitarian collectivism looks like on the right is fascism/Nazism (although as Kut said, fascism can be left or right wing). What totalitarian collectivism looks like on the left is socialism/communism.

 

[jamil]

This may be your opinion, but it is incorrect. Political ideology so far as; left-wing, right-wing, liberal, conservative, depends entirely on the state of the particular government at the time. Right-wing/conservatives, regardless of political ideology, are more focused on maintaining the status quo, and exhibiting a reluctance to change. You can be a die-hard socialist, and still be right-wing/conservative.
After a nation has established a identity, concerning government, those that support it are considered conservatives, those that want to change it, liberals. The former Soviet Union, is a good example of this. Gorbachev was a liberal, Yeltsin more so. The conservative wing of the party attempted to hinder Gorbachev, and literally overthrow Yeltsin. The people doing so weren't liberal, by the Soviet standard, they were right-wing conservatives.
That's very basic political science. You can find volumes and volumes on the subject.

Edit: here, maybe this will explain the notion better. Do you consider the Founding Fathers liberals/left wing or conservative/right wing, compared to the Crown/Tories/Monarchists?

Conservatism wants to preserve traditional values, their way of life, status quo. Those were the Tories then. The liberals were the founding Fathers, what with all those new-fangled ideas of liberty and such. The nerve of them flouting individual rights over the collective crown.

By "liberal" I mean it more literally, as in liberty, not left wing ideologues who are sometimes referred to as progressives. The founders were also progressive in that they were willing to fight to progress to the change they wanted. They were activists, which usually I really don't care much for. I think David Chappelle's gave me some words to think about, to decide when it's okay to be an activist, to force a change. It's an idea that's already in the minds of many people. He expressed the idea that no one can live in the world today's left is proposing. I think that's a pretty good way to decide what is a good progression and what's a bad one. Progressing on the side of individual liberty is generally a good thing.

 

[jamil]

The spectrum you're using is the establishment's false dichotomy. All statist and collectivist forms of government are leftist; Total anarchy is the far right. I'm a minarchist hoppean libertarian. Constitutionally limited Republics such as the USA fall within the area that classical political theorists referred to as "the golden mean". Our government is running to the left: more statist, collectivist, and lurching toward totalitarianism.

Sigh.

No. The left and the right both have anarchism and both have totalitarianism. The left and the right both have collectivism and individualism. This is because anarchism vs authoritarianism and collectivist/individualist are not in the same dimension as right vs left.