Monday, June 21, 2010

Both Sen. Kyl and the USURPER are in violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution...

SEE ARTICLE BELOW WHERE SEN. KYL SAYS OBAMA WILL NOT PROTECT THE BORDER UNLESS AMNESTY IS PASSED

It's an impeachable offense because AKA OBAMA swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and Kyl (who swore a similar oath) is telling his constituents 'I'm not going to do anything about it'. I'll go further - it's much bigger than the Blagojevich thing...it's treasonous because he is aiding our enemies by allowing them to infiltrate the country. Also Kyl is derelict in his duty. He is obligated to demand this matter be brought before the Congress and, if necessary the courts.

Article 3 of the US Constitution.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

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. 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.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States ], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[12]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[13] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

1 comment:

  1. Astounding! It seems that our elected representatives have no idea of their responsibilities to the Constitution or to America. While we have a voting population of under-educated (make that un-educated) morons who put people like this in office, it's also obvious that once in office these parasites (regardless of party affiliation)make no attempt to protect and preserve this country or its patriotic citizens. Kyl must be held responsible for his abyssmal lack of understanding of his Constituional obligation to pursue this matter to the full extent of the law.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.