Leaking classified info is a crime. He's a traitor.
Other people have been decried as traitors for their stance against the rancid actions and policies of their governments. Later they are called heroes, freedom fighters, and patriots.
The modern interpretation of Franklin's quotation is correct, as Franklin had made similar statements over the years many times. He was in favor of a strong defense AND for the restraint on power in the Federal government.
The modern interpretation of Franklin's quotation is correct, as Franklin had made similar statements over the years many times. He was in favor of a strong defense AND for the restraint on power in the Federal government.
He's dead. Quotation means nothing since he no longer runs the country.
The modern interpretation of Franklin's quotation is correct, as Franklin had made similar statements over the years many times. He was in favor of a strong defense AND for the restraint on power in the Federal government.
He's dead. Quotation means nothing since he no longer runs the country.
The Constitution "runs" the Republic. What the founders forgot to do was create a U.S. Constitution Police whose sole duty would be the enforcement of constitutional law and have the power to arrest the President or even members of Congress for violations. As it is now, those violations go unchecked and unpunished.
He's dead. Quotation means nothing since he no longer runs the country.
The Constitution "runs" the Republic. What the founders forgot to do was create a U.S. Constitution Police whose sole duty would be the enforcement of constitutional law and have the power to arrest the President or even members of Congress for violations. As it is now, those violations go unchecked and unpunished.
The Constitution is old. Everyone that wrote it is dead. Has no bearing in today's world.
Other people have been decried as traitors for their stance against the rancid actions and policies of their governments. Later they are called heroes, freedom fighters, and patriots.
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
The Constitution "runs" the Republic. What the founders forgot to do was create a U.S. Constitution Police whose sole duty would be the enforcement of constitutional law and have the power to arrest the President or even members of Congress for violations. As it is now, those violations go unchecked and unpunished.
They make laws and SCOTUS decides what's constitutional or not. There's your checks and balances.
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
They make laws and SCOTUS decides what's constitutional or not. There's your checks and balances.
Except the SCOTUS only takes on cases presented to them and a person has to prove harm. How can a person prove harm when a president or Congress is openly violating the Constitution and direct harm is difficult or impossible to prove?
The Constitution is old. Everyone that wrote it is dead. Has no bearing in today's world.
So case law is irrelevant? What an absurd argument. Do you prefer anarchy over constitutional law and a Bill of Rights or just the whim and will of the most powerful against the rest of the country?
The Constitution is old. Everyone that wrote it is dead. Has no bearing in today's world.
So case law is irrelevant? What an absurd argument. Do you prefer anarchy over constitutional law and a Bill of Rights or just the whim and will of the most powerful against the rest of the country?
Old and ineffective. Need to find a new way of doing things.
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
Really? Given that the classified information is proof of the government's actions that are protest-worthy, what is the difference? Civil disobedience to effect change is a long standing tradition.
Really? Given that the classified information is proof of the government's actions that are protest-worthy, what is the difference? Civil disobedience to effect change is a long standing tradition.
Stealing isn't civil disobedience. If I rob a bank because they made bad loans which cost me my retirement, it's still a felony.
Comments
I will be as soon as the traitor is brought to justice
Leaking classified info is a crime. He's a traitor.
Other people have been decried as traitors for their stance against the rancid actions and policies of their governments. Later they are called heroes, freedom fighters, and patriots.
The modern interpretation of Franklin's quotation is correct, as Franklin had made similar statements over the years many times. He was in favor of a strong defense AND for the restraint on power in the Federal government.
He's dead. Quotation means nothing since he no longer runs the country.
The modern interpretation of Franklin's quotation is correct, as Franklin had made similar statements over the years many times. He was in favor of a strong defense AND for the restraint on power in the Federal government.
Whoopdy-do. Snappy quotes don't make good policy.
The Constitution "runs" the Republic. What the founders forgot to do was create a U.S. Constitution Police whose sole duty would be the enforcement of constitutional law and have the power to arrest the President or even members of Congress for violations. As it is now, those violations go unchecked and unpunished.
The Constitution is old. Everyone that wrote it is dead. Has no bearing in today's world.
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
They make laws and SCOTUS decides what's constitutional or not. There's your checks and balances.
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
They make laws and SCOTUS decides what's constitutional or not. There's your checks and balances.
Except the SCOTUS only takes on cases presented to them and a person has to prove harm. How can a person prove harm when a president or Congress is openly violating the Constitution and direct harm is difficult or impossible to prove?
The Constitution is old. Everyone that wrote it is dead. Has no bearing in today's world.
So case law is irrelevant? What an absurd argument. Do you prefer anarchy over constitutional law and a Bill of Rights or just the whim and will of the most powerful against the rest of the country?
Old and ineffective. Need to find a new way of doing things.
Old and ineffective. Need to find a new way of doing things.
LOL!... How about you spell out your suggestions?
they thwarted only the ones they aided and abetted...
There's a difference between protesting a govt's actions and willfully stealing classified information and disseminating it to others.
Really? Given that the classified information is proof of the government's actions that are protest-worthy, what is the difference? Civil disobedience to effect change is a long standing tradition.
Stealing isn't civil disobedience. If I rob a bank because they made bad loans which cost me my retirement, it's still a felony.
Edward Snowden didn't steal anything. He leaked it. Leaking information is disobedience.
Why should I? I'm just like everyone else on here that critical of things but never have a suggestion for change.
^ Certain bits of it could certainly use a rewrite and/or a clarification.
Good luck with the 'clarification'. The ones that could clarify it are dead.