Saturday, July 12, 2008

The Constitution vs. the Declaration

I got this comment in the post on GFW Disorder:
Curious as to your opinion on how this section of the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

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.

wouldn't armed resistance be treason according to this definition?

BTW, Article. VI states:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Meaning you can wipe your ass on the declaration of independence. It ain't constitutional.

You should bone up on what you are defending before you go about defending it.

Well, gee, the Declaration as toilet paper. Kind of like so many politicians use the Constitution. Which is what the Declaration is all about. It's a warning to politicians who'd like to be kings, that they can't hide behind the Constitution at the same time they're trying to wipe their ass with it; that if they become tyrants we have the right and duty to do something about it.

Which means, if it came to that extreme, doing something about it to throw out the dirtbags who are wiping their ass with the Constution- and us- is not levying war against the United States; it's fighting for the U.S.

I'm not the best with words, this could well be better said, but that's what I think.


Roger Ritter said...

Public officials, military members and others take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United State from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If it becomes necessary to resort to violence against government officials who are ignoring or violating the Constitution, it won't be treason. Those officials will certainly call it that, but it won't be. It will just be protecting the Constitution from a domestic enemy who's trying to hide behind it while destroying it.

Kevin said...

I'll quote the eloquent Alex Kozinski (again):

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.