Can we sue the 5 members of the SC for treason?

[Nancy Waterman]

For creating laws that allow foreign governments and corporatists power over the US electoral system?

http://www.samefacts.com/2010/01/corruption-in-washington/citizens-united-for-subservience-to-tyrants/

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United is probably a greater catastrophe than the Mass. Senate election. In effect, it allows corporations to put unlimited amounts of cash into influencing elections.

One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations. Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company: Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company. So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians. If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it: they soon will.

Nor is this a problem that can be handled by “disclosure.” The ad on TV praising the opponent of the congressman who did something to annoy Hugo Chavez won’t say “Paid for by Hugo Chavez.” It will say “Paid for by Citizens for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” which in turn will have gotten a contribution from “Americans for Niceness,” which in turn will have gotten a contribution from a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Cities Service that no one has ever heard of.

The United States has a $13 trillion GDP, and total annual campaign spending is on the order of $2 billion. Buying influence on the American government has to be the highest-leverage activity ever invented, and Justice Kennedy and his four accomplices just invited every oligarch and tyrant in the world to play. This is not just a threat to democracy; it’s a threat to sovereignty.

[timeforpeace]

1. Go for it.

[MercutioATC]

2. Would it occupy a lot of time?

Enough that this silly question wouldn't be posted here a few times a day?

If so, have at it.

[onenote]

3. no.

not even remotely anything but no.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. It could be Hell No...

:eyes:

[Birthmark]

4. How is that treason?

To what enemy were the Justices adhering or providing aid and comfort? Did they levy war against the United States? Those are the tests for treason under the Constitution.

"Treason" is a powerful word and accusation. So much so that it was defined in the Constitution just to keep it from unfairly being thrown at those we merely disagree with.

[Demeter]

8. Foreign powers, baby

If it looks like treason, acts like treason, overthrows the damn government, It's Treason.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. We are not in a formal state of war with all nations of the Earth

Foreign and enemy are not legal synonyms

[Demeter]

10. You don't need guns to take over a government

and we haven't had a formal state of war since 1947, but that hasn't stopped anybody.

[onenote]

13. if you'd like to read it, there are websites where you can find the Constitution

Check out Article III, Sec.3.

[timeforpeace]

22. How would we tell the difference? Oh, you said formal.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. The civil suit for treason hasn't really caught on but treason would be grounds for impeachment

If you feel that any SC member is guilty of treason (which they are not, but speaking for the sake of argument) then impeachment would be the sensible course.

[Cha]

6. Something has to be done..

The scotus already gave us bushcheney in 2000 and we saw how that went.

[Demeter]

7. Impeachment and trial

and THEN the firing squad. Yes We Can!

[Ian David]

11. This was corruption, not Treason. Bush v Gore was Treason. n/t

[onenote]

14. really? How so?

It was a absurdly wrong decision but that isn't synonymous (or even close) to "treason" under the US Constitution

[Ian David]

15. Bush v Gore over-threw the legitimately elected government of The United States. n/t

[onenote]

16. so I take it you didn't bother to read Art III, Sec 3

Here, I'll save you the time:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Sorry, but Bush v. Gore doesn't meet that test. And unfortunately, it didn't "over throw" the legitimately elected government of the United States since, under the Constitution, the determination of who is "legitimately elected" isn't decided on election night. Its decided by the electoral college.

It was a bad decision because it stopped the FLorida recount for reasons that make no legal sense and that distort the constitution, imo. But it wasn't "treason" and I won't abuse the Constitution as a response to another constitutional abuse.

[Ian David]

18. You make some good points. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Try "sedition." May not be correct but it's a lot closer than treason

[NoNothing]

20. However

Sedition is not illegal. The alien and sedition acts were odious when they existed and are long gone.

[grytpype]

19. Durp!

[treestar]

21. Silly

Disagreement is one thing, but calling it treason? How Republican.