The definition of treason in the COTUS is very narrow and this clearly does not meet that definition. Not that the facts matter when we’re trying to be outraged.
It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
How is understanding the constitution apologizing for anyone?
how is answering questions with more questions that do nothing to answer the original questions count as a response?
Because you have nothing else. Your premise is weak, your assertions specious, your entire argument is a disgrace to debating, so your only means of response is “not me, you!”
You ask a leading question and I rightfully dismissed it with a question that exposed what a joke it is. The reality is that you can’t explain how understanding the constitution is apologizing for anyone, so you have to whine about the rhetorical device used to expose the glaring logical flaw in your “argument.”
You could have just said “well understanding the cotus is not apologizing for anyone” and this would have been a much shorter and reasonable conversation.
You harp on and on about understanding the constitution but only illustrate ignorance. Also, you’re getting your threads mixed up idiot.
Are you just perpetually lost, that’s why we all get the same “BUT BUT COTUS” argument that doesn’t actually refer to any parts of the constitution or cite any relevant passages?
BUT BUT COTUS
Get fucked gaslighter. It was insurrection, stop crying and move on.
Remind me again what the Constitutional punishment for treason is?
A light wrist slapping. Bad boy! Get in timeout.
The definition of treason in the COTUS is very narrow and this clearly does not meet that definition. Not that the facts matter when we’re trying to be outraged.
It is in no way clear that it doesn’t meet the definition. An armed group attacked our capital for the purpose of overthrowing the government.
“ Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. He stated: On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.”
There is nothing in that quote that contradicts my point. It’s just arguing that actually taking up arms is not a requirement.
In fact.
Actually supports my point because this was part of no war.
You’re deliberately interpreting “war” in the narrow sense of conflict between countries, but that’s not the extent of the definition in English common law where the phrase came from.
A group attempting to effect by force a treasonous purpose is sufficient, as clearly stated in the quote.
Show me in common law where war is interpreted in a way that would include this insurrection.
And, again, your quote isn’t about the definition of war or even force, but that one doesn’t need to take up arms in order to be guilty of treason.
The quote says “if war actually be levied, that is…”
So you see the phrase “that is”? In the English language, we understand that to mean defining the preceding term. The words following “that is” are therefore defining what it means to levy war in this context.
And it’s easier to find interpretations of the term by modern judges than to dig through English case law, so here’s one: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a8e8add7b04934706331
why are you such an apologist for idiot seditionists that literally attacked the capitol and attempted to stop the peaceful transition of power?
every time you chime in it’s “yeah people want to be outraged it’s bullshit”
Fuck you. Seeing chuds smearing shit in the capital is an outrage, fuck outta’ here with your bullshit gaslighting.
that shit is fucked sideways.
How is understanding the constitution apologizing for anyone?
how is answering questions with more questions that do nothing to answer the original questions count as a response?
Because you have nothing else. Your premise is weak, your assertions specious, your entire argument is a disgrace to debating, so your only means of response is “not me, you!”
go to bed, child.
You ask a leading question and I rightfully dismissed it with a question that exposed what a joke it is. The reality is that you can’t explain how understanding the constitution is apologizing for anyone, so you have to whine about the rhetorical device used to expose the glaring logical flaw in your “argument.”
GOP traitors one and all
You could have just said “well understanding the cotus is not apologizing for anyone” and this would have been a much shorter and reasonable conversation.
You harp on and on about understanding the constitution but only illustrate ignorance. Also, you’re getting your threads mixed up idiot.
Are you just perpetually lost, that’s why we all get the same “BUT BUT COTUS” argument that doesn’t actually refer to any parts of the constitution or cite any relevant passages?
BUT BUT COTUS
Get fucked gaslighter. It was insurrection, stop crying and move on.