Constitution of the United States

[usmc4669]

Constitutional Amendments
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ( see Free Speech Is Not Free Speaking), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

John Kerry when he came back from Vietnam didn't he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies? I think that he did when he protested the War in Vietnam, Now how can he be elected the by our Commander In Chief?
Think about this.....

:marine: :banana:

[jinelson]

Gee USMC4669 I thought that I was the only person to remember
John Kerry's traitorous acts against our nation. I agree that he did engage in insurrection and rebellion. Even though he now says that he accidentally threw his medals over the White House fence. His aid and or comfort to the enemy was second only to Hanoi Jane Fonda's.

Thanks for protecting our Constitution

Semper Fi
Jim

I do solemly swear to protect the Conststution of The United States of America from all enemies foriegn and domestic.

[ivalis]

Since when did free speech become a traitorous act?

[MAJMike]

Gentlemen:

There is a big difference between "treason," "insurrection" and excercising one's right of free speech - also protected by the Constitution. Before you post inflamatory posts such as this, you should perhaps look up the legal definition of "treason" and "insurrection."

As Marines we have all fought to protect our rights - mine, yours and even John Kerry's. Kerry's protest during the Viet Nam war, AFTER he had served honorably, is nothing more than the excercise of free speech. Intimating that such is "treasonous" is the type of thing that happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Be glad that we are all Americans with ALL of the rights that we have fought and sacrificed to keep.

[usmc4669]

MAJMike:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ( see Free Speech Is Not Free Speaking), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Free Speech Is Not Free Speaking, It’s imperative that we realize what free speech is, and what it is not.
The word speech in the First Amendment does not mean one-way utterance, as it perhaps does today. Rather, it means conversation and willing dialogue about our common concerns, such as government policies which we are all required to support with taxes.
In early America, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, persons were frequently heard to say, “I wish to have speech with you.” The phrase “the freedom of speech” (note the definite article) means just what it meant in the 1689 British bill of rights, where it plainly meant speech-making and debates occurring in Parliament under unanimously agreed rules of conduct.


TREASON:
1. Betrayal of trust or faith; treachery. 2. Violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal to one's country, specif., in the U.S. (as declared in the Constitution), consisting only in levying war against the U.S. or in Giving AID AND COMFORT TO ITS ENEMIES.
If you do not believe that protesting the Vietnam war wasn't giving aid and comfort to our enemy, I disagree with you.

When John Kerry called President George W, Bush a Traitor then I still believe what he did was the same.

One question, are you Democrat or Republican.
I would have said the same thing if John Kerry was a Republican,

Semper Fi

GySgt Marvin Bush USMC Retired

[ivalis]

Gunny, what law school did you attend, I assume you didn't graduate.

Free speech is what ever the supreme court says it it. It, unfortunately, includes the burning of the flag.

[MillRatUSMC]

http://www.ctssar.org/images/thomas_paine.jpg
Thomas Paine
Wonder what he would have to say on the current state of affairs?
He was every out spoken and he sure made use of his freedom to speak his mind, even before there was a United States of America

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The modern American conception of freedom of speech derives from the principles of freedom of the press (mainly in the context of political criticism) and freedom of religion as they developed in England, starting in the seventeenth century. The arguments of John Milton and others on the importance of an unlicensed press, and of John Locke and others on religious toleration, were the precursors to the idea of freedom of speech, although also relevant is the much narrower concept of "freedom of speech" as an immunity for prosecution for anything said in the course of parliamentary debate.

By 1791, when the First Amendment was ratified, the idea of "freedom of speech" was sufficiently entrenched that it became the primary language of the amendment, with "freedom of the press" being added to ensure that written and printed as well as oral communication was protected: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Still, the focus both in law and in political discussion at the time was on printed political argument, whether in newspapers or the kinds of tracts distributed by men like Thomas Paine.
continued...

[MillRatUSMC]

The period from 1791 to the early twentieth century saw almost complete judicial noninvolvement in free speech and free press questions, and public discussion was devoted largely to free press rather than free speech ideas. But when the Supreme Court actively began in 1919 to concern itself with judicial enforcement of the First Amendment, it was in the context not of newspapers or magazines or books but of speakers, or occasionally pamphleteers, who were protesting American involvement in the First World War or promoting anarchist, socialist, or syndicalist causes. Although the convictions were upheld and the speakers imprisoned in cases involving the now-forgotten figures Charles T. Schenck, Jacob Abrams, and Jacob Frohwerk, as well as prominent ones such as Eugene V. Debs, the Supreme Court's language in those cases has had an enduring effect. In upholding the convictions of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., enunciated the principle of the "clear and present danger," according to which, to justify regulation, the harms resulting from speech had to be greater in likelihood and immediacy than harms of other varieties. And in dissenting from the conviction of Abrams, Holmes developed the notion of the "marketplace of ideas," which has dominated public understanding of the importance of freedom of speech.

The development of freedom of speech for the next forty years was also dominated by Supreme Court protection of largely oral and frequently socially marginal communicators, of whom the most important were the Jehovah's Witnesses. In case after case in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, they challenged restrictions on their proselytizing activities and won in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts with sufficient frequency that their victories established in legal doctrine and public consciousness the principle that even annoying, intrusive, and offensive speech is to be protected by the courts and tolerated by the public as incidental to an open society.
continued....

[MillRatUSMC]

Contemporary understandings of freedom of speech, however, owe even more to developments in the 1960s, during which first civil rights protesters and then objectors to the Vietnam War found the courts upholding their activities against governmental efforts to restrict them. Increased public acceptance of such activities followed. In this respect, the modern protection of freedom of speech is partly fortuitous, for the protection of civil rights demonstrators, paraders, and picketers in the 1960s was largely an adjunct to judicial protection of the civil rights movement generally. Nevertheless, the First Amendment principles developed to further the civil rights movement remained in place to be used for other speakers promoting other causes.

The most important manifestation of this transfer started in the late 1960s, when the Supreme Court with some consistency recognized the right of speakers in the "public forum" to articulate ideas that not only were in opposition to established military and political authority but also were highly likely to offend unwilling listeners or viewers. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Court protected with some frequency those who desecrated the American flag, who displayed offensive language, such as obscene words on an article of clothing, and who conveyed messages often as likely to be harmful as they were offensive. Operating on the assumption that underregulation of even harmful speech was the only way in an imperfect world to protect against the overregulation of harmless speech, the Court went from the protection of Vietnam protesters to the protection of the speech of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, it was the Klan case of Brandenburg v. Ohio that in 1969 established the current extraordinarily strict understanding of the Holmesian idea of "clear and present danger." Speech leading to violence or other unlawful activities can be restricted only if the ensuing lawless activity is likely to be "imminent" and even then only if the speaker has explicitly urged that activity. By 1977 it was considered an "easy case" when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting in Chicago, upheld the right of the American Nazi party to march in a community (Skokie, Illinois) heavily populated by Holocaust survivors, a decision the Supreme Court refused to review.

Legal doctrine has not always translated into public understanding or freedom in fact, but here the result of a large number of Supreme Court cases protecting even harmful and offensive speech in the public forum, and narrowing to virtual disappearance the legal definition of "obscenity," has created an environment in which the presence of unpleasant speech is tak- en for granted by most of the public, whether they agree with that state of affairs or not. There will, of course, continue to be disputes about the actual boundaries of this very broad principle, but the legacy of the Jehovah's Witnesses, of the civil rights movement, and of the Vietnam protesters is one that is unlikely to be very much narrowed, in large part because the legacy of the red scare of 1919 and the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and early 1950s is one whose avoidance also influences current understanding.

Harry Kalven, Jr., A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America (1988); Richard Polenberg, Fighting Faiths: The Abrams Case, the Supreme Court, and Free Speech (1987).

Frederick Schauer
continued...

[MillRatUSMC]

So from all that, we come to an understanding of what we swore to protect and defend...The Constitution of the United States of America.
Sometimes, I wonder what men referred to themselves as back then.
Patroits?
Minutemen?
Surely not the Founding Fathers!
Then we come to what might be treason?
Acts and words giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Men after wars have spoken out on the conduct of that war they fought in.
Some men become pacifists and hate all war as an insanity.
Men and women that fought our wars, are sometimes forgotten.
As is the case of those World War II.
Many are just seen as a burden to this current generation.
The very few surviving veterans of World War I don't exist in the mind of some.
We must give them their due before its too late...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

[usmc4669]

MillRatUSMC
Member
Damn very long answer. Still say that the Supreme Court are the ones who sets the law as to how we use Freedom of Speech. It would be like me calling you a SOB and not having to have proof

[MillRatUSMC]

http://www.ctssar.org/images/thomas_paine.jpg
He one of my favorite from that period.
My favorite quote from Thomas Paine;

Patriotism

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Also enjoyed reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

[usmc4669]

MillRatUSMC
Looked up Thomas Paine on the web and found Common Sense, will read it when I get the chance.
Semper Fi Marine

[namgrunt]

This is almost as good as taking classes in government. It is interesting to note that, despite all the freedom of speech and rights enjoyed by both sides, speaking of "Christian values" can land you in a heap of legal trouble. How is it that the people who clamor loudest for freedom of speech, are the ones who decry the mention of religious belief on the steps of a public building, in the public forum, or even a public park?

As has been reviewed, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." If this is true, then how can there be a drive to exclude the mention, on public property, of the Bible and its contents? Why are students "prohibited" from praying before public school sports events?

For that matter, in my local region (Southeast Michigan), there was a news story on TV several months ago. A local Marine flew the American flag on a flagpole in his front yard, with a Marine Corps flag below it. He was told he had to strike the colors because it offended some of the neighbors on his block. They didn't like seeing it when they drove by. Can you imagine that? In America!!! He was vowing to fight the order, and the news story disappeared from the radar screen.

It seems only the people who are disruptive have the rights. Its a matter of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

namgrunt

[leroy8541]

It seems the constitution is like the bible now a days. Each person who reads it come away with a different take. Everyone wants to reshape the verses/ammendments to suit their own taste. Furthermore if they don't like it, the constitution that is, they "ratify" it. Try to pass laws to change it IE Gun control vs. the second ammendment.

[greybeard]

Treason? probably not, due to the specific wording of the constitution regarding treason. Even Aaron Burr escaped this clause, and he was actively planning a war with Spain and/or France. I would think Kerry would fall under another part of the US Code. There islittle doubt Kerry was involved in making false statements abou the prosecution of the war in Vietnam, with the purpose of causing the end of hostilities, and the failure of the endeavor. Sec 2388:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of
the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the
United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as
within the United States.

For those of you who insist we were not at war in Vietnam, Setcion 2387:

Section 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ''military or
naval forces of the United States'' includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel.