Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "'Completely damning' video of Trump ally emerges" video.

The "Declaration of Independence" applied exclusively to ENGLAND, and included a catalog of grievances against King George III, including this: "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power". And it DOES NOT include the word anywhere in it the word "revolution"; and the Founders attacked and overthrew ZERO colonial gov'ts precisely because they all along controlled the colony gov'ts. Nor has the "Declaration" ever been LAW. The Constitution, which is the SUPREME Law of the Land, includes this -- "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS". The Founders classified insurrection as TREASON. There is no right to engage in insurrection -- it is expressly ILLEGAL -- or to commit TREASON.
31
@arjaygee Suggest you read more of the Constitution than the misinterpreted phrase ripped out of the controlling and limited context of the Second Amendment, the subject of which is well-regulated Militia, for which "the right of the people to [keep and] arms" is a redundancy incorporated from the four state constitution Militia Clauses on which it was based -- "Art I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS". Insurrection is "Levying war against the United States," as was the Confederate insurrection, which was TREASON. I have the advantage of researching these issues for more than thirty years. The FOUNDERS prosecuted the "Shays's" insurrectionists under the Articles of Confederation -- charging them with, trying them for, and convicting them of, TREASON, and sentencing them to DEATH. And the FOUNDERS prosecuted the "Whiskey insurrectionists, under the Constitution, and AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, charging them with, trying them them for, and convicting them of, TREASON, and sentencing them to DEATH. Do you really wish to assert that the Confederate insurrection was NOT "Levying war against the United States"? The First Amendment also accommodates Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. by protecting PEACEBLE assembly; VIOLENT assembly is ILLEGAL. And when that VIOLENT assembly is an attack on gov't, it is INSURRECTION, and that is OBVIOUS TREASON.
1
@arjaygee I also recommend that you read the 14th Amendment, and the "Ku Klux Klan Act" of 1871 which implements it.
1
@arjaygee I've been studying these issues for more than 30 years. The same Founders who convicted insurrectionists -- a violent attack on gov't -- of TREASON wrote the Constitution based on prior law. It is a consistent theme through the so-called "revolution," the adoption of state constitutions, and the US Constitution. Insurrection, the intent of which is overthrow of the gov't, is TREASON.
1
@arjaygee I've heard the claim a few times that "treason" can't be committed without a declared war, but have never seen anything backing that claim. There were no declared wars at the time of "Shays's" or "Whiskey" insurrections, except in the response to the insurrections.
1
@arjaygee Insurrection is an effort to overthrow gov't. Effort to overthrow gov't is TREASON. There is no RIGHT to engage in either.
1
Nor is it necessary that there be a "declaration of war" to transform the crime of insurrection into the crime of insurrection and treason.
1
@arjaygee Violent attack on the gov't is insurrection. The intent of the insurrection is to overthrow the gov't. The intent to overthrow the gov't is TREASON. It's in the Constitution. Apparently you believe that, in order to call an insurrection "insurrection," and therefore "treason," the Congress must first issue a "just in case" "declaration of war," in advance of an unexpected insurrection -- and only THEN can it be called treason. There was no war, and no war declared, after the so-called "revolution," when "Shays's" rebellion occurred. The same goes for the "Whiskey" insurrection: there was no war, and no war declared. Nonetheless, in both instances, they were insurrections, and the insurrectionists were charged with, tried for, and convicted of TREASON. As said, the themes are consistent from the legal history leading up to and beyond those insurrections. The definitions of the words didn't change from Articles of Confederation to Constitution, and the responses were identical. One of the police officers who testified to to the Select Committee said that one of the insurrections said to him directly: "We are here to overthrow the gov't." Another of those law-illiterate crackpots, as he was walking into the Senate chamber said, "Why don't we set up a gov't while we are here?" There was already a gov't "set up," but the intent was to overthrow the existing gov't. The Constitution address that: "Art. I., S. 8., c. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS." The Civil War was an insurrection by the seceding states, levying war against the United States, and thus was TREASON.
1
@arjaygee The intent to overthrow the gov't is TREASON.
1
@arjaygee Read the 14th Amendment. The LEGAL HISTORY, including statutory, before, during, and after the so-called "revolution," classified insurrection as treason. That theme was and remains consistent. The definitions of the words haven't changed; the linkage hasn't changed: The intent of insurrection is overthrow of the gov't. Overthrowing the gov't is treason.
1
@arjaygee I have the advantage of having been researching these issues for more than 30 years. The Founders were clear, consistently, that insurrection IS treason. Insurrection is levying war against the gov't, whether Unites States or state. They actively established that as precedent in both "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrection prosecutions, with the charges and convictions of TREASON.
1
Eastman is a member of the Federalist Society," along with Jeffrey Clark, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. They oppose, with Bannon, the "administrative state," beginning especially with civil rights law and law enforcement.
1