Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior

[Burning_Ember]

Rewriting the constitution is treason plain and simple.

The Constitution defines treason, does it not?

[Matthitjah]

Rewriting the constitution is treason plain and simple.

The Constitution defines treason, does it not?

Sounds like the Sedition act will do just fine. Meanwhile, Please spare us Wikipedia. It is notoriously faulty and tainted.

Here's the Supreme Court Justices Oath;

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

I would say that's a pretty clear cut case of dereliction of oath as well as sedition.

I'm curious as to why you, B.E., support the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution when you don't even live here?

[Burning_Ember]

Sounds like the Sedition act will do just fine. Meanwhile, Please spare us Wikipedia. It is notoriously faulty and tainted.

The Sedition Act was repealed in 1920. If the Sedition Act was still in place, you and many others on this very forum would probably be tried under it since it disallowed people to speak out against the Government, as it has on this forum. Since you don't like wikipedia, here is the direct quote from Article III.

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.

Here's the Supreme Court Justices Oath;

I would say that's a pretty clear cut case of dereliction of oath as well as sedition.

I'm curious as to why you, B.E., support the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution when you don't even live here?

I never said that I support dismantling The US Constitution. You just made that up.

Judges on The Supreme Court may only be removed by an Impeachment Trial by Congress in instances of Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. How High Crimes and Misdemeanors is typically interpreted... Is typically if you are trying to Overthrow the Country, Give Aid or Profit to its Enemies, or Injuring the Country for the Profit of a Particular Group.

Now, after all that, let's take a look at the Question and see what she was actually asked, and said.

Q: Would your honor's advice be to get a part or other countries' constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

A: You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution: Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others.

She NEVER said a thing about rewriting the Constitution. Fortunately, American Law doesn't work via the whims of people wanting to try people for Treason.

Edited to Add: This is a perfect example of what I have said several times.

Media in America is no longer about reporting stories to let everyone know The Truth™ as responsible Journalists whos jobn it is to tell people The Truth™ and to let people know what's really going on. It is a product. They sell their story to their audience. They sell their audience to their advertisers. The Advertisers sell their products to the audience.

This story got sold to a specific audience, one that wouldn't mind... Or maybe, wants to hear that Liberals are trying to rewrite the Constitution.

You guys got sold. To the highest bidder for whoever runs the ads for buying Gold and whatnot on WND.

[Matthitjah]

Sounds like the Sedition act will do just fine. Meanwhile, Please spare us Wikipedia. It is notoriously faulty and tainted.

The Sedition Act was repealed in 1920. If the Sedition Act was still in place, you and many others on this very forum would probably be tried under it since it disallowed people to speak out against the Government, as it has on this forum. Since you don't like wikipedia, here is the direct quote from Article III.

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.

Here's the Supreme Court Justices Oath;

I would say that's a pretty clear cut case of dereliction of oath as well as sedition.

I'm curious as to why you, B.E., support the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution when you don't even live here?

I never said that I support dismantling The US Constitution. You just made that up.

Judges on The Supreme Court may only be removed by an Impeachment Trial by Congress in instances of Treason, Bribery, or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. How High Crimes and Misdemeanors is typically interpreted... Is typically if you are trying to Overthrow the Country, Give Aid or Profit to its Enemies, or Injuring the Country for the Profit of a Particular Group.

Now, after all that, let's take a look at the Question and see what she was actually asked, and said.

Q: Would your honor's advice be to get a part or other countries' constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

A: You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution: Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others.

She NEVER said a thing about rewriting the Constitution. Fortunately, American Law doesn't work via the whims of people wanting to try people for Treason.

Edited to Add: This is a perfect example of what I have said several times.

Media in America is no longer about reporting stories to let everyone know The Truth™ as responsible Journalists whos jobn it is to tell people The Truth™ and to let people know what's really going on. It is a product. They sell their story to their audience. They sell their audience to their advertisers. The Advertisers sell their products to the audience.

This story got sold to a specific audience, one that wouldn't mind... Or maybe, wants to hear that Liberals are trying to rewrite the Constitution.

You guys got sold. To the highest bidder for whoever runs the ads for buying Gold and whatnot on WND.

Great then. Impeach her. Yes, she is about undermining the U.S. Constitution. She obviously believes that we need to look elsewhere to Govern our Nation.

I want to know if you will say the same thing you've just said about WND about The Daily KOS or perhaps MSNBC?

Yes, folks have a viewpoint and they will tend to get their information from sites that agree with their worldview. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Matthitjah]

By the way. Sedition can still be tried in the case of Public Officials under the Smith Act. It was used widely in the 40's.

I'll note that you did not say a word about the Oath that the Justices take.

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Appears to leave no wiggle room for what their authority is and under what mandate they operate and that would be the Constitution.

I can't believe that I'm arguing American civics with a Canadian.

[Matthitjah]

P.S. the intital article is from WND in this thread.

I heard about it from Drudgereport and also The Blaze initially.

It has also been a topic recently and in past years in the States. Other Justices have said the same thing. The reaction has been the same from the public who understand that the Constituion is our founding document and our Guide when it comes to Governing the Nation. I'm certain that you don't get that. Your worldview is polar opposite that.

[Burning_Ember]

Great then. Impeach her. Yes, she is about unermining the U.S. Constitution. She obviously believes that we need to look elsewhere to Govern our Nation.

I want to know if you will say the same thing you've just said about WND about The Daily KOS or perhaps MSNBC?

Yes, folks have a viewpoint and they will tend to get their information from sites that agree with their worldview. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Impeach her for what? You've proven nothing.

She was never asked, nor did she answer in any capacity that The Constitution of America should be rewritten. She never said that America needed to look somewhere else to Govern itself.

You're making assumptions, which is otherwise known as making things up. The Constitution and American Law help prevent witchhunts like this.

Your opinion as to whether she believes something is not relevant. Your statements wouldn't hold up in an impeachment trial, just like this whole WND story didn't last through the scrutiny of one random Canadian on some message board.

Have I said the same thing about them specifically? No. You'll note that I mentioned "American Media" in my post, I consider them American Media. The bit about how they work as business isn't really different. They all do that. I don't care what organization it is that misrepresents stories or fails on extremely basic fact checking so that they can honestly report a story... If they do that, it is wrong.

Whether people reinforce their own beliefs by reading things they agree with is up to them. I care about the truth, not reinforcing my own beliefs by reading things I agree with.

The Truth isn't something that fits in the box of one particular political view. I read everything I can to try find out what that is.

[~candice~]

I believe the article was a hypothetical, not a reality. She was asked a "what if" question. I don't believe she has any intention of re-writing the constitution, what she does do, however, is reveal her attitude towards your constitution. I can kinda see BE's point here.

[Matthitjah]

Let's examine what she's said;

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Much like Barack Obama and other Progressives she clearly see's the Constitution as a relic of a Document that doesn't apply to the modern age. Likely because it was written as a document that limits the role and scope of Government.

Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Because much of what is written elsewhere in the world denies the basic tenants of our Judeo/Christian Faith and is an attempt at denying mans God given rights and the Creator God.

She should be impeachd, as she denies the very document she swore to base her rulings upon.

I still note that BE hasn't commented on the Oath that these Justices take to base their rulings on the Constitution and under the laws of the U.S.

If the Congress had properly done its Job and vetted these folks we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in with them. Some of our Leaders downright despise the document that they are sworn to uphold.

It's clear from Bader Ginsbergs comments that she believes the document to be a relic of a time past. That it is not relevant to today and shouldn't be used as a foundational document for any modern rendering of basic human rights. These are the same kind of folks who believe that the Word of God is irrelevant as well.

As I've stated, "It's a Worldview problem."

[Matthitjah]

Great then. Impeach her. Yes, she is about unermining the U.S. Constitution. She obviously believes that we need to look elsewhere to Govern our Nation.

I want to know if you will say the same thing you've just said about WND about The Daily KOS or perhaps MSNBC?

Yes, folks have a viewpoint and they will tend to get their information from sites that agree with their worldview. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Impeach her for what? You've proven nothing.

She was never asked, nor did she answer in any capacity that The Constitution of America should be rewritten. She never said that America needed to look somewhere else to Govern itself.

You're making assumptions, which is otherwise known as making things up. The Constitution and American Law help prevent witchhunts like this.

Your opinion as to whether she believes something is not relevant. Your statements wouldn't hold up in an impeachment trial, just like this whole WND story didn't last through the scrutiny of one random Canadian on some message board.

Have I said the same thing about them specifically? No. You'll note that I mentioned "American Media" in my post, I consider them American Media. The bit about how they work as business isn't really different. They all do that. I don't care what organization it is that misrepresents stories or fails on extremely basic fact checking so that they can honestly report a story... If they do that, it is wrong.

Whether people reinforce their own beliefs by reading things they agree with is up to them. I care about the truth, not reinforcing my own beliefs by reading things I agree with.

The Truth isn't something that fits in the box of one particular political view. I read everything I can to try find out what that is.

So you don't read the Bible to re-inforce what you believe? Truth is relative? Veritas? Nay.