5 ms·

>Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll ove

>Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen. Treason is the alternative?

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
It's not treason to follow your oath of office, to defend the Constitution, nor is it treason to follow the mandate the Congress created for your agency. It is treason to, as president, violate your oath of office to follow and protect the Constitution.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Has the president done something unconstitutional, or do you just want him to?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process. He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president. He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society. Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot. It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.
    - dagw 10y ago
      Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.
      - nostrademons 10y ago
        There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "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." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
        gadders 10y ago
        Obama also attacked the Supreme Court.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Hell, FDR tried to pack it!
        MichaelBurge 10y ago
        I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context. I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
    - nl 10y ago
      I'm no Trump fan, but for impeachment you need evidence of laws being broken. Of the things you listed only the first could conceivably lead to that. Demand an independent investigation first.
Ironchefpython 10y ago
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. > Treason is the alternative? Correct. It is the rational and moral choice. Just as you must defy the orders of your superior officer if ordered to commit war crimes prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so must you defy the President to preserve the aims of liberty and equality expressed in the US Constitution.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Sure, but that's not the situation we're dealing with. No war crimes are being ordered, in fact, it doesn't seem anything is being ordered at all. They're just betraying their superiours for ??? private reason. Whose liberty are they defending?
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Intelligence agencies attacking a democratically elected head of state is no defense of liberty. You're attributing noble motives to people just because they're doing what you want them to do.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It all depends on what said democratically elected head of state is trying to do, and what they're trying to prevent him from doing. Being democratically elected does not give an automatic grant of immunity to legal and, more importantly, moral limits on one's actions. And you're correct that we don't know the motives of those people. Just as OP doesn't know that they aren't noble, you also don't know that they aren't.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Good grief dude, turn off the TV for a couple of days. The Trump has been president for like a month, and literally nothing has happened. Unless you have a burning desire for war in Syria and Russia, why would you strain to find noble intentions in intelligence agencies, of all places?
ben_w 10y ago
Hi, I'm British. The USA literally only exists because the founding fathers committed treason against my ancestors.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  That was because they were being taxed without representation. The problem here is that agencies of the government are undermining the representatives. It's almost the opposite action. Treason against tyranny looks like it turns out for the better; but treason against democracy seems pretty sick to me.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    One could argue that it's not really a democracy when the winning candidate is 2.8 million votes short, you know. Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really? One could also remember that many famous tyrants came to power through a fair democratic process. Erdogan is one such example, Putin is another. And, of course, there was that whole thing in Weimar Germany. Which just goes to show that democracy can sometimes be oppressive, and fighting that oppression amounts to "treason against democracy".
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really? It isn't a democracy, it's a republic. If the rules were different things would be different. But "different" doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats would have the presidency, it might only mean the Republicans would have spent more time campaigning in Texas and New York because picking up more votes in those states would then have actually mattered.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        > It isn't a democracy, it's a republic. You'll have to take that up with OP - he's the one asserting that it's "treason against democracy".
tobylane 10y ago
Some would call it civil disobedience or demanding the standards they've come to expect.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Defense of the Constitution is the alternative. That's not treason. When people are sworn into office, their oath is to the Constitution, not to the President.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

It's not treason to follow your oath of office, to defend the Constitution, nor is it treason to follow the mandate the Congress created for your agency. It is treason to, as president, violate your oath of office to follow and protect the Constitution.

microcolonel 10y ago
Has the president done something unconstitutional, or do you just want him to?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process. He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president. He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society. Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot. It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.
  - dagw 10y ago
    Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.
    - nostrademons 10y ago
      There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "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." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
      - gadders 10y ago
        Obama also attacked the Supreme Court.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        Hell, FDR tried to pack it!
      - MichaelBurge 10y ago
        I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context. I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
  - nl 10y ago
    I'm no Trump fan, but for impeachment you need evidence of laws being broken. Of the things you listed only the first could conceivably lead to that. Demand an independent investigation first.

Ironchefpython 10y ago

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. > Treason is the alternative? Correct. It is the rational and moral choice. Just as you must defy the orders of your superior officer if ordered to commit war crimes prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so must you defy the President to preserve the aims of liberty and equality expressed in the US Constitution.

microcolonel 10y ago
Sure, but that's not the situation we're dealing with. No war crimes are being ordered, in fact, it doesn't seem anything is being ordered at all. They're just betraying their superiours for ??? private reason. Whose liberty are they defending?
pessimizer 10y ago
Intelligence agencies attacking a democratically elected head of state is no defense of liberty. You're attributing noble motives to people just because they're doing what you want them to do.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It all depends on what said democratically elected head of state is trying to do, and what they're trying to prevent him from doing. Being democratically elected does not give an automatic grant of immunity to legal and, more importantly, moral limits on one's actions. And you're correct that we don't know the motives of those people. Just as OP doesn't know that they aren't noble, you also don't know that they aren't.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Good grief dude, turn off the TV for a couple of days. The Trump has been president for like a month, and literally nothing has happened. Unless you have a burning desire for war in Syria and Russia, why would you strain to find noble intentions in intelligence agencies, of all places?

ben_w 10y ago

Hi, I'm British. The USA literally only exists because the founding fathers committed treason against my ancestors.

microcolonel 10y ago
That was because they were being taxed without representation. The problem here is that agencies of the government are undermining the representatives. It's almost the opposite action. Treason against tyranny looks like it turns out for the better; but treason against democracy seems pretty sick to me.
- int_19h 10y ago
  One could argue that it's not really a democracy when the winning candidate is 2.8 million votes short, you know. Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really? One could also remember that many famous tyrants came to power through a fair democratic process. Erdogan is one such example, Putin is another. And, of course, there was that whole thing in Weimar Germany. Which just goes to show that democracy can sometimes be oppressive, and fighting that oppression amounts to "treason against democracy".
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Yes, I know, rules are rules - but if rules admit the validity of such an outcome, how much of a democracy is it, really? It isn't a democracy, it's a republic. If the rules were different things would be different. But "different" doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats would have the presidency, it might only mean the Republicans would have spent more time campaigning in Texas and New York because picking up more votes in those states would then have actually mattered.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      > It isn't a democracy, it's a republic. You'll have to take that up with OP - he's the one asserting that it's "treason against democracy".

tobylane 10y ago

Some would call it civil disobedience or demanding the standards they've come to expect.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Defense of the Constitution is the alternative. That's not treason. When people are sworn into office, their oath is to the Constitution, not to the President.