Republican Senator says to shoot and hang...

[Prometheus]

[ame]http://youtu.be/mlpVJC4Phlg[/ame]

Excellent coverage.

 

[jbombelli]

I won't say who *I* am with, because I don't need to talk to the feds this week.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A Republican quoting a Democrat.

Or, a more eloquent turn of phrase:

"If one drop of blood be shed in South Carolina in defiance of the laws of the U.S., I will hang the first of the nullifiers I can get my hands on."

So, what's wrong with hanging traitors? The Constitution provides for it. What's the beef, chief?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If only he had, how many would be alive today!

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun." Andrew Jackson.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, what's wrong with hanging traitors? The Constitution provides for it. What's the beef, chief?

Does proposing to ignore a federal law that clearly has no foundation in authority granted to the federal government treasonous? I could accept that argument if it were applied to those who are in fact subverting the Constitution.

 

[rambone]

So, what's wrong with hanging traitors? The Constitution provides for it. What's the beef, chief?

Nullification of Federal law has absolutely NOTHING to do with treason.

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.
​

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nullification of Federal law has absolutely NOTHING to do with treason.

When you attack the United States with guns and torches a la the Andrew Jackson example you are subject to hanging pursuant to the federal law of Treason.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Does proposing to ignore a federal law that clearly has no foundation in authority granted to the federal government treasonous?

No, but attacking the White House with guns and torches is treasonous.

 

[Prometheus]

Does proposing to ignore a federal law that clearly has no foundation in authority granted to the federal government treasonous? I could accept that argument if it were applied to those who are in fact subverting the Constitution.

Exactly.

It is that Senators DUTY to oppose legislation repugnant to the Constitution. While not the Constitutional definition, it certainly is a dictionary definition of the word traitor, to describe someone who violates their sworn oath.

 

[jbombelli]

No, but attacking the White House with guns and torches is treasonous.

I must have missed where people are currently advocating storming the White House by force?

 

[sgtonory]

The power lies in the people. I don't know about you but i am not bound to any law but common law. The sooner we realize this the better.

 

[Tsigos]

The power lies in the people. I don't know about you but i am not bound to any law but common law. The sooner we realize this the better.

I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, I am curious about whether you pay taxes, have a drivers license. Register your car, carry insurance etc.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know about you but i am not bound to any law but common law.

Oh, boy, the common law hokey pokey!

Ok, so you are bound by judge-created law? What happens when the judge-created law references the statutes that the Congress or the General Assembly have passed? How does this work in the INGO Conflict of Law process?

I'll wait here and do the INGO hokey pokey=>